alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the  quarterly  report of Synergx  Systems  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Daniel  S.  Tamkin,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  and I, John A.
Poserina, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to
my knowledge, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                    /s/ Daniel S. Tamkin
                                   -----------------------
                                   Daniel S. Tamkin
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   Synergx Systems Inc.
                                   February 14, 2005



                                   /s/ John A. Poserina
                                   -----------------------
                                   John A, Poserina
                                   Chief Financial  Officer
                                   Synergx Systems Inc.
                                   February 11, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             678
<SECURITIES>                                     1,127
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,552
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,357
<PP&E>                                         500,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,778)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 503,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,965
<BONDS>                                        443,466
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     20,000
<COMMON>                                       864,482
<OTHER-SE>                                   (942,716)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   503,197
<SALES>                                          5,320
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,320
<CGS>                                            6,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,365
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,726)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,726)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,726)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        




</TABLE>
6

Alaska

Texas

Utah

Montana

California

Arizona

Idaho

Nevada

Oregon

Iowa

Colorado

Kansas

Wyoming

New Mexico

Missouri

Minnesota

Nebraska

Oklahoma

South Dakota

Washington

Arkansas

North Dakota

Louisiana

Illinois

Ohio

Florida

Alabama Georgia

Wisconsin

Virginia

Indiana

Michigan

Mississippi

Kentucky

Tennessee

Pennsylvania

North

Carolina

South

Carolina

West

Virginia

New Jersey

Maine

New York

Vermont

Maryland

New Hampshire

Connecticut

Delaware

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Portland

Sacramento 

Phoenix

St. Paul

Tulsa OK City

Washington DC

NIGC FY18 GGR Distribution Map

$3.7B (‘17=$3.4B)

55 ops (‘17=52 ops)

$9.3B (‘17=$9.0B)

73 ops (‘17=74 ops)

$3.1B (‘17=$3.0B)

59 ops (‘17=59 ops)

$2.5B (‘17=$2.4B)

73 ops (‘17=72 ops)

$7.5B (‘17=$7.3B)

38 ops (‘17=37 ops)

$4.8B (‘17=$4.6B)

95 ops (‘17=92 ops)

FY18 GGR = $33.7B, 501 ops

$2.5B (‘17=$2.3B)

72 ops (‘17=69 ops)

Rapid City

$0.4B (‘17=$0.4B)

36 ops (‘17=39 ops)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                        0
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            42,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        705,049
<PP&E>                                               20,388,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                        6,041,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       15,781,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 1,331,804
<BONDS>                                              11,445,388
<COMMON>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         15,781,300
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      1,008,100
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         1,360,689
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          2,508
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      239,327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (350,081)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (350,081)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                (2.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0

        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement of General Surgical Innovations, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-10305
and No. 333-44791) of our reports dated July 23, 1999, on our audits of the
financial statements and financial statement schedule of General Surgical
Innovations, Inc. as of June 30, 1999 and 1998 and for the years ended June 30,
1999, 1998 and 1997 which reports are included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended June 30, 1999.



San Jose, California              PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
September 16, 1999


<PAGE>

                   INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE

To The Board of Directors and Shareholders of General Surgical
Innovations, Inc.:

         Our audits of the financial statements referred to in our report dated
July 23, 1999, appearing on page 38 of this Form 10-K also included an audit of
the financial statement schedule listed in Item 14 (a) (2) of this Form 10-K. In
our opinion, this financial statement schedule presents fairly, in all material
respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the
related financial statements.



                                  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


San Jose, California
July 23, 1999






                                       S-1

<PAGE>

                       GENERAL SURGICAL INNOVATIONS, INC.

                 SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             BALANCE AT          CHARGED IN
                                            BEGINNING OF          COSTS AND                              BALANCE AT
DESCRIPTION                                     PERIOD             EXPENSES          DEDUCTIONS      END OF PERIOD
--------------                              ------------         ----------          ----------      -------------
<S>                                         <C>                  <C>                 <C>             <C>
Year ended June 30, 1999
      Allowance for doubtful accounts:      $      72            $     118           $     (21)      $    169
      Allowance for sales returns:          $      --            $     541           $    (360)      $    181

Year ended June 30, 1998
      Allowance for doubtful accounts:      $      47            $      59           $     (34)      $     72
      Allowance for sales returns:          $      --            $      --           $      --       $     --

Year ended June 30, 1997
      Allowance for doubtful accounts:      $      78            $      --           $     (31)      $     47
      Allowance for sales returns:          $      --            $      --           $      --       $     --
</TABLE>

                                       S-2
#### Kim W. LUBKE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF ARLINGTON, et al., Defendants, City of Arlington, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-11213.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 19, 2006.

Larry A. Leviek, Gabrielle Alicia Hamm, Gerard, Singer & Leviek, Addison, TX, Roger L. Hurlbut (argued), Law Offices of Robert Hurlburt, Arlington, TX, for Lub-ke.

Bryan Patrick Neal, Thompson & Knight, Dallas, TX, Frank Waite, Asst. City Atty. (argued), Arlington, TX, for City of Arlington.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is DENIED; and the mandate for our opinion filed June 30, 2006 is hereby issued.

Therefore, as we stated in that opinion, the case is remanded to the district court to recalculate damages. We note that after entry of final judgment by the district court, after the issuance of our opinion on appeal, and after the submission of a petition for panel rehearing, it was brought to this Court’s attention that Lubke filed for bankruptcy on June 10, 2005. In his bankruptcy filing, Lubke did not disclose his judgment against the City of Arlington. Subsequently, a motion to revoke discharge was filed, and an agreed judgment revoking discharge has been entered in the bankruptcy court.

Citing Lubke’s bankruptcy filing and nondisclosure of the judgment, the City has asked this Court to judicially estop Lubke from asserting his FMLA case on appeal. Because of the timing of Lubke’s bankruptcy filing, judicial estoppel was not addressed below. And the record here is not sufficiently developed for this Court to decide the issue.

It is also ORDERED, therefore, that on remand, the district court shall determine in the first instance, with an evidentiary hearing if necessary, whether judicial es-toppel applies. *See In re Coastal Plains,*179 F.3d 197, 210 (5th Cir.1999).

Following the district court’s determinations regarding damages and judicial es-toppel, any appeal of those determinations should be returned to this panel; and we retain jurisdiction during the pendency of the remand. *See Wheeler v. City of Columbus,*686 F.2d 1144, 1154 (5th Cir.1982).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 23, 2021

No. 04-21-00286-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.N.D., J.D.D., B.F.C., J.C. AND E.L.C.

From the County Court at Law, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 3761CCL

Honorable Sergio J. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On July 14, 2021, appellant filed a notice of accelerated appeal and a motion for 

extension of time to file the notice of appeal. We grant the motion for extension of time to file 

the notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b), 26.3. 

 On July 19, 2021, appellant's counsel, Guadalupe R. Rodriguez, filed a motion to 

withdraw. We grant the motion to withdraw. We order the trial court to appoint appellate 

counsel for Rebecca Clementz July 28, 2021. We further order the trial court to notify this 

court and all parties in writing when new counsel has been appointed. 

 We order the clerk's and reporter's records due August 2, 2021.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of July, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
#### MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK v. SIMON.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 30, 1954.

Haughton Bell, New York City (Arthur Kaiser, Richmond Hill, N.-Y., Carl F. Hollander, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Leon Wasserman, New York City, for defendant.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

Plaintiff seeks to reform a policy issued by it to the defendant, its assured, so as to correct the amount stated on page 1 of the policy as the single sum payable upon an endowment maturity from “Fifty Seven *Thousand*Ninety-Eight and 26/100 Dollars” ($57,098.26) to “Fifty Seven *Hundred*Ninety Eight and 26/100 Dollars” ($5,798.26). The *337plaintiff alleges that the amount inserted in the policy is the result of an inadvertent error by its scrivener. A second and alternative claim for a declaratory judgment is also asserted.

The defendant moves under Rule 12 (f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., to strike various allegations of the complaint which particularize the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the policy. These include, for example, a reference to the fact that $5,798.26, the sum alleged to be the correct “Single Sum” annuity is in conformity with (a) the amount shown on plaintiff’s Rate Book; (b) another policy issued to the defendant in December 1944, when the one sued upon herein was issued; and (c) all other policies issued in 1944 and 1945 on the same plan. Undoubtedly, some evidentiary matter has been alleged, and the complaint might well have been shortened to meet the requirement of a “short and plain statement of the claim” as specified in Rule 8 (a) (2) ; but in view of Rule 9 (b), which provides that “the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity”, the averments will be permitted to stand. A number of allegations seek to establish that the error was so palpable and egregious that the defendant well knew of the error.1 In the absence of prejudice to the defendant, and none has been shown, the allegations tending to support plaintiff’s claim will be permitted to stand.2

The alternative claim for a declaratory judgment is properly pleaded and no substantial reason has been advanced to strike it.3 If plaintiff’s allegations are true, the defendant is seeking a windfall due to a scrivener’s error. In this circumstance we follow Rule 8(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: “All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.”

The motion is denied.

Settle order on notice.

1

. Cf. Moffett, Hodgkins & Clarke Co. v. City of Rochester, 178 U.S. 373, 20 S.Ct. 957, 44 L.Ed. 1108.

2

. Sinaiko Bros. Coal & Oil Co. v. Ethyl Gasoline Corp., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 2 F.R.D. 305.

3

. Cf. Rules 8(a) and 8(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramiro Alonzo Mejia, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 570]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), rendered May 12, 2011, convicting him of arson in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*856Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence *(see*CPL 220.60 [3]; 470.05 [2]; *People v Clarke,*93 NY2d 904, 906 [1999]; *People v Cullum,*93 AD3d 856 [2012]; *People v Hayes,*91 AD3d 792 [2012]; *People v Kulmatycski,*83 AD3d 734 [2011]). Furthermore, the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant’s allocution did not cast significant doubt on his guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of his plea *(People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; *see People v McNair,*13 NY3d 821, 822 [2009]; *People v Soria,*99 AD3d 1027, 1027 [2012]; *People v Young,*88 AD3d 918, 918 [2011]). In any event, the record reflects that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent *(see People v Seeber,*4 NY3d 780, 780-781 [2005]; *People v Alexander,*97 NY2d 482, 485 [2002]; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9 [1983]).

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea *(see People v Ropiza,*100 AD3d 935 [2012]; *People v Watt,*82 *AD3d 912 [2011]; People v Aguayo,*73 AD3d 938, 939 [2010]). To the extent the defendant claims that the alleged ineffective assistance affected the voluntariness of his plea, the record reveals that he received an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]; *People v Aguayo,*73 AD3d at 939; *People v Hughes,*62 AD3d 1026 [2009]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit *(see People v Eun Sil Jang,*17 AD3d 693, 694 [2005]). Angiolillo, J.P, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

|   | (1) | The                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006                (the                “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of                section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                      |                                                                             |                                                       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: May                  12,                  2006 |                                                                             | /s/ Robert                  A.                  Crist |
|                                                      | Robert                      A. CristChief                      Financial Officer |
|                                                      |                                                                             |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Lance Paulin, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jesus Pratts, Appellant.

Submitted May 2, 2011;

decided May 5, 2011

Motion by New York City Bar Association for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeals herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,775]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 8, 2009, in response to a petition filed by three workers on behalf of all workers at Circor Energy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The petitioners requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13451 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 67 3- CR J ohnny Steven MONTANA , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 175th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2006CR1926 Honora ble Mary Román, J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Catherine Stone, Justi ce Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: October 15, 2008 DI SMI SSED The trial court’s cer

tification in this appea l states that the ca se is a “ple a-ba rg ain ca se, and the def endant ha s NO rig ht of appe al.” Rule 25.2(d) of the Tex as Rules of Appe llate Proce dure provides, “[t]he appeal must be dismissed if a certifica tion that shows the defe ndant has a rig ht of appea l has not been ma de par t of the re cord unde r these r ules.” T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d). Appella n t ’s counsel ha s filed written notice with this court that counsel has r eviewe d the
rec ord and “ can f

ind no rig ht of appe al for Appellant.” We construe this notice a s an indication that04
- 08
- 00 67 3- CR

- 2- appellant will not seek to file a n amende d trial court c ertification showing tha t h e h as the rig ht of appea l. See T EX . R. A PP . P
. 25 .2 (d ); 37 .1 ; se e als o D an ie ls v . S tat e , 110 S.W .3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). I n light of the rec ord presented, we ag ree with appellant’s
c ou ns e l th a t Ru le 25 .2 (d ) r e qu ir e s th is c ou rt to di sm is s thi s a pp e a l. A c c or din g ly , th is a pp e a l is dismiss ed. PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH