alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 2



                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
                          AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I,
Daniel E. Luebben, as Chief Financial Officer of Auto-Graphics, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (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.




Date:  March 30, 2004                   By:  /s/ Daniel E. Luebben
     ------------------                 ---------------------------------
                                        Daniel E. Luebben
                                        Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      10,665,826
<SECURITIES>                                 1,405,579
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,711,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,637,556
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,139,535
<PP&E>                                      10,767,376
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,728,167
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,084,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,295,387
<BONDS>                                      1,677,367
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,569
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,966,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,084,852
<SALES>                                     29,680,520
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            34,719,406
<CGS>                                       24,247,403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,247,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,211,485
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             217,615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,042,903
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,350,746
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,417,269
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,417,269
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39

<FN>Accounts Receivable are net of allowance of
    $385,000 at December 31, 1996.
<FN>Inventories are net of reserve of $169,000
    at December 31, 1996.


</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-792

RICHARD ARVIN GUEVARA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed January 13, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County,

Alan S. Apte, Judge.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellant.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and 

Kevin R. Holtz, Assistant Public Defender, 

Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

BERGER, J., concurring specially.
2

BERGER, J., concurring specially. 5D16-0792

It is more likely than not that exigent circumstances existed in this capital sexual 

battery case to justify the warrantless search. However, at the hearing on Guevara’s 

motion to suppress, the State inexplicably failed to put on any evidence in support of the 

exigency exception, even after being given the opportunity to reopen its case.1 For this 

reason, I am constrained to concur.

 

1

In addition to the testimony presented during the hearing on Guevara’s 

motion to suppress, the record on appeal contains the police report and a transcript of the 

victim’s mother’s testimony. The additional information, while probative, was not 

introduced at the hearing and, thus, was not considered by the trial court when ruling on 

the motion to suppress.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Brousseau, Petitioner, v Raymond W. Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[825 NYS2d 440]

Determination of respondent Police Commissioner, dated January 4, 2005, finding petitioner guilty of (1) wrongfully restraining and handcuffing his girlfriend during an off-duty altercation, (2) allowing the girlfriend to violate an order of protection by permitting her to stay at his home, (3) interfering with a police investigation by falsely stating in an interview that an assistant district attorney had advised him that the girlfriend could stay at his home without violating the order of protection, and (4) failing to report that he had been involved in an off-duty police incident, and imposing a penalty of a 30-day suspension, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered August 9, 2005) dismissed, without costs.

*565With respect to (1) above, petitioner’s contention that, in violation of his right to due process *(see Matter of Murray v Murphy,*24 NY2d 150, 157 [1969]), he was found guilty of the uncharged failure to follow police procedure after the wrongful handcuffing, rather than of the handcuffing itself, is without merit. The findings clearly state that the handcuffing was the misconduct of which petitioner was found guilty, and that the failure to follow procedure afterward was considered only as evidence of petitioner’s intent, not as a separate charge. With respect to (2), the written modification of the order of protection that petitioner argues permitted the girlfriend to stay at his home *(but see People v Lewis,*13 AD3d 208, 210-211 [2004] [victim cannot grant subject of an order of protection permission to enter off-limits premises], *affd on other grounds*5 NY3d 546 [2005]) did no more than give the girlfriend additional limited visitation with the couple’s child. Petitioner’s testimony that the assistant district attorney who had handled the incident underlying the order of protection advised him that the modification allowed the girlfriend to stay at his home was flatly denied by the assistant district attorney, and no basis exists to disturb the hearing officer’s findings of credibility *(Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). With respect to (3), the hearing officer’s finding of “ambiguity” in petitioner’s testimony concerning his understanding of his conversations with the assistant district attorney does not require a finding of not guilty, and was instead appropriately considered by the hearing officer as a mitigating factor. With respect to (4), we reject petitioner’s argument that the requirement that he notify the Police Department of the incident involving the girlfriend to which state troopers responded was excused by the notification given by the troopers. The penalty of a 30-day suspension does not shock our conscience. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
No. 5005.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### JOSEPH ROTH vs. P. FABIAN.

*423P. L. Fourchy for plaintiff and appellant.

-Robinson and Stafford for defendant and appellee.

DUFOUR, J.

This is a suit coupled with a provisional seizure for the full amount of rent for the term of the lease, with attorneys’ fees, based on the claim that the failure to pay one rent note at maturity, matured the whole obligation.

It appears that for seven years past the defendant had been the plaintiff’s lessee, and that the custom had arisen between them that the rent should not be exacted at maturity, but could be paid within reasonable delay thereafter.

Relying upon this, Fabian did not promptly pay the rent due October 15th, and, on November 4th, Roth made written demand for the same, and, on November 8th, he placed the matter in the hands of counsel for collection.

Just before the filing of the suit, Fabian offered to pay Roth’s attorney the one month’s rent, with interest and fee; this was refused. During the course of the litigation, each month’s rent was deposited in the registry of the court as it accrued.

It is urged as a defense that the rent had been retained by the lessee in order to repair the cistern, or otherwise secure the proper water supply, should the lessor fail to do so, and though the lessor subsequently did the work, the lessee did not know whether or not he would do so.

The fact is proved, and the lessee was justified in his action.

R. C. C., Art. 2694.

In 121 La. 935, the Supreme Court said:

> “This Court has not heretofore had occasion to *424apply this principle in any case of lease, but the Court of Appeal for the Parish of Orleans has had occasion to do so.

May 16, 1910.

Rehearing refused May 30, 1910.

Writ denied by Supreme Court July 1, 1910.

‘ ‘ In the case of Bacas vs. Mandot, 3 Ct. of App. 324, the Court said:

> “When a lessor, month after month, has, without objection or protest, accepted the rental a few days after the maturity of the notes, he cannot, without previous notice to his tenant, claim the forfeiture of the lease, we concur in these views. ’ ’

The facts of this case bring it within the scope of the decision and of the article of the Code just cited.

The judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount deposited in court by defendant, and further dissolving the writ, with attorneys’ fees, is correct.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          131720
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                131720
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  243392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2010
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      241383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    243392
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2397
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    19763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (17366)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (17366)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17366)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not presented, as all shares of common stock are held by a sole
shareholder.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
97-607.

#### State ex rel. Waller v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Mandamus and Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32(b)

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





|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.









|/s/ Leo P. DenaultLeo P. Denault
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Entergy Corporation
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:	March 1, 2007
No. 4860.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### MRS. ROSA B. KNAPP ET AL. vs. BOARD OF ASSESSORS ET AL.

W. L. Gleason for plaintiff and appellee.

Zacharie, Terriberry, Reilley & Sneed for defendant and appellant.

GODCHAUX, J.

This is a suit for reduction of assessment, the plaintiffs having complied with all legal formalities required to establish their standing in court to test its correctness. The evidence in the' record, in addition to proof of the rentals-fixed in certain leases bearing upon the property, consists of the testimony of the Assessor for the district; of a real estate expert, and of a former lessee of the property. The Assessor places a valuation on the property in excess of the assessment for 1909, but his testimony in explanation of the phenomenal and radical increase in value of the property and consequently in its assessment from $35,000, in 1904, to $36,000 in 1905, to $50,000 in 1906, then to $75,000 in 1908, and, finally, to $90,000 in 1909, is unsatisfactory and unconvincing. The real estate expert fixes the value of the property at $60,000, whilst the former lessee places it at *122$50,000. The testimony of each of these witnesses appears entitled to equal weight. On the score of rentals, the rent originally fixed and received hy the owner is decidedly too low, while the rental fixed in a later lease proved excessive and the tenant who assumed its payment became insolvent.

January 10, 1910.

The lower Court fixed the value at $60,000, and reduced the assessment accordingly. We are unable to say that it fixed the valuation incorrectly; and though perhaps, as an original proposition, we might have placed it a little higher, we still would not be certain that, in so doing, our valuation of the property would more nearly represent its true value than that adopted by the lower Court.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

 

**(PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002)**

 

(Subsections(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of theundersigned officers of Apogee Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, that:

 

The quarterly report on Form10QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the “Form 10QSB”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form10QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  November 14, 2003 | /s/    Herbert  M. Stein                                                                       |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                | Herbert M. Stein                                                                                                   |
|                                | Chairman  of the Board,                                                                                            |
|                                | President,  Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer  (principal financial officer and principal accounting  officer) |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14068]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,421]


Pacific Automotive, Components and Systems International, 
Including On-Site Leased Workers from Quality Temporary Service, Imlay 
City, Michigan; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply 
for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor issued a Certification of 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on February 18, 2009 applicable to workers 
of Pacific Automotive, Components and Systems International, Imlay 
City, Michigan. The notice was published in the Federal Register on 
March 10, 2009 (74 FR 10303).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of seat bolsters, armrests and door bolsters for the 
auto industry.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
secondarily affected workers employed at Pacific Automotive Components 
and Systems International, Imlay City, Michigan.
    New information shows that workers leased from Quality Temporary 
Service were employed on-site at the Imlay City, Michigan location of 
Pacific Automotive Components and Systems International. The Department 
has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control 
of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include leased workers from Quality Temporary Service 
working on-site at the Imlay City, Michigan location of the subject 
firm.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-64,421 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Pacific Automotive Components and Systems 
International, Imlay City, Michigan, including on-site leased 
workers from Quality Temporary Service, Imlay City, Michigan, who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
November 12, 2007, through February 18, 2011, are eligible to apply 
for trade adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act 
of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade 
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC this 6th day of May 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-14068 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### In the Matter of Lydia D., Respondent, v Thomas B., *IV,*Appellant.

Submitted October 1, 2012;

decided December 11, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that *950the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #11774 and #11775]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of ALABAMA dated 06/09/2009. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Tornadoes. *Incident Period:*
                         04/10/2009 through 04/13/2009.
                        ( print page 28586) *Effective Date:*
                         06/09/2009. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         08/10/2009. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/09/2010.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Dekalb, Marshall. *Contiguous Counties:* Alabama: Blount, Cherokee, Cullman, Etowah, Jackson, Madison, Morgan. Georgia: Chattooga, Dade, Walker. The Interest Rates are: PercentHomeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
4.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.187Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
6.000Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
4.500Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11774 C and for economic injury is 11775 0. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Alabama and Georgia. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Dated: June 9, 2009. Karen G. Mills, Administrator.


[FR Doc. E9-14151 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P