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

Littler Mendelson, P.C.

One Newark Center, 8th Floor

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Employment & Labor Law Solutions Worldwide

Glenn J. Smith

Office Managing Shareholder

Frank A. Custode

r\ * i. 1 imn 973.848.4712 direct

October 1, 2010 973.848.4700 main

973.741.2309 fax

VIA ECF AND OVERNIGHT MAIL fcustodeoiittier.com

Honorable Faith S. Hochberg, U.S.D.J.

United States District Court, District of New Jersey

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building

50 Walnut Street

Newark, New Jersey 07101

Re: Waste Management of New Jersey, Inc. v. Teamsters-Employers

Local 945 Pension Fund, et al.

Civil Case No. 10-cv-3984 (FSH) (PS)

Dear Judge Hochberg:

We write in response to Defendants' letter of October 1, 2010. Defendants properly seek a

hearing, pursuant to this Court's order of September 27, 2010, on Waste Management's

motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the arbitration that had been scheduled to begin

on September 29, 2010, before Arbitrator Leibowitz and pursuant to the Fund's June 2009

Resolution.

Defendants also request, however, a hearing on whether "Waste Management is obligated to

proceed to arbitration before Arbitrator Wellington Davis pursuant to the resolutions adopted

by the Trustees prior to December 2008." The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to

decide that question, because Defendants have never initiated, or even threatened to initiate,

arbitral proceedings against Waste Management that are before Arbitrator Davis and

pursuant to the June 2007 Resolution. Such arbitral proceedings are therefore not addressed

in Waste Management's pending motion for a preliminary injunction. Even more

importantly, such hypothetical arbitral proceedings are nowhere addressed in Waste

Management's Complaint. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy that raises the

question of whether "Waste Management is obligated to proceed to arbitration before

Arbitrator Wellington Davis pursuant to the resolutions adopted by the Trustees prior to

December 2008," and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide that issue.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Frank A. Custode

Frank A. Custode

FAC/pnk

cc: Susan Katz Hoffman, Esquire

Ronald E. Richman, Esquire (via email)

Melissa Flax, Esquire

Sara Solfanelli, Esquire

|itt|||

irjj|wide:97799414.1 046609.1744

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 32 Filed 10/01/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 544
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

     The undersigned officer of Wellman, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies
that the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2004 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is
provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a
part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.

Date: March 15, 2005


                                        /s/ Keith R. Phillips
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
      32.1




**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 Splinternet Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned’s 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.








Dated:  May
      14,
      2007


By: /s/
      James
      C. Ackerly


James
      C.
      Ackerly, Chief Executive Officer


and
      President (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit
      23




Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




The
      Board
      of Directors


Medialink
      Worldwide Incorporated:




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
      333-27207 and 333-126213) on Form S-8 and in the registration statements (Nos.
      333-120956) on Form S-3 of Medialink Worldwide Incorporated of our report dated
      March 26, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Medialink
      Worldwide Incorporated as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related
      consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for
      each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, which report
      appears in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Medialink
      Worldwide Incorporated.




As
      discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, Medialink
      Worldwide Incorporated and subsidiaries adopted SFAS No. 123 (Revised 2004), *Share-Based
      Payment* ,
      as of
      January 1, 2006.






(Signed)
      KPMG LLP


New
      York,
      New York


April
      2,
      2007
#### Peter Figdor et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 385]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered July 6, 2005 and December 28, 2005, respectively, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs’ motions to strike defendant’s answer for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery, unanimously modified, on the facts, to grant plaintiffs’ motions to the extent of directing that defendant’s answer be struck unless, within 30 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, defendant pays plaintiffs’ attorney $10,000, and otherwise affirmed, with costs in favor of plaintiffs. *561Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 10, 2006, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as the appealed order did not decide a motion made on notice (see CPLR 5701) and we decline to grant leave to appeal.

Defendant’s response to the myriad discovery orders entered in this action over the course of some two years has been inexcusably lax (see *Goldstein v CIBC World Mkts. Corp.,*30 AD3d 217 [2006]). While discovery has trickled in with the passage of each compliance conference, the cavalier attitude of defendant, resulting as it has in substantial and gratuitous delay and expense, should not escape adverse consequence *(see Kihl v Pfeffer,*94 NY2d 118 [1999]; *and see Anonymous v High School for Envtl. Studies,*32 AD3d 353 [2006]). We take this opportunity to encourage the IAS courts to employ a more proactive approach in such circumstances; upon learning that a party has repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, they have an affirmative obligation to take such additional steps as are necessary tp ensure future compliance. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.
#### Jason PRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Steve LARKINS, Warden, ERDCC, Individually; Larry Short, Functional Unit Manager, ERDCC, Individually; Unknown Wescott, Sergeant, Correctional Officer II, ERDCC, Individually; Unknown Miller, Correctional Officer I, ERDCC, Individually; Unknown Holifield, Correctional Officer I, ERDCC, Individually; Michelle Williford, Correctional Officer I, ERDCC, Individually, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-2652.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 29, 2013.

Filed: Feb. 27, 2013.

Jason Price, Jefferson City, MO, pro se.

Jaclyn Kinkade, Attorney General’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, Joel A. Poole, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Jason Price appeals the district *623court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review, see *Whitson v. Stone County Jail,*602 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir.2010), we agree with the district court that the record does not create a jury issue on whether defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to avert an attack that Price suffered at the hands of a fellow inmate, see *Young v. Selk,*508 F.3d 868, 871-72 (8th Cir.2007) (under Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, prison officials must take reasonable steps to guarantee inmate safety by protecting them from attacks by other inmates). Because we agree with the court that the record does not establish an Eighth Amendment violation, we need not address the issue of qualified immunity. *See Schmidt, v. City of Bella Villa,*557 F.3d 564, 574 (8th Cir.2009). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL**

**OFFICEROF GENERAL PARTNER OF HILAND HOLDINGS GP, LP**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with theaccompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three and six monthsended June 30, 2008 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew S. Harrison, Chief FinancialOfficer, Vice President-Finance and Secretary of Hiland Partners GP Holdings,LLC, the general partner of Hiland Holdings GP, LP (the “Company”), herebycertify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

2.             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: August 11, 2008 | /s/ Matthew S. Harrison                                        |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Matthew S. Harrison                                            |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer, Vice President-Finance  and Secretary |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Westway Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.Name:

Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.Title:

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


Dated: May 10, 2010
EXHIBIT 23(a)




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form
S-8, Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491,
33-54075, 33-54079, 33-54077, 333-47833, 333-28273 and Form S-3, Nos.
33-36001 and 333-60175) pertaining to various stock option, employee savings,
deferred compensation and restricted stock plans and a universal shelf
registration statement of Wellman, Inc. of our report dated February 15,
1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedules included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Wellman,
Inc.




                                             Ernst & Young LLP



Charlotte, North Carolina
March 26, 1999
Exhibit 32.2  Certification of the Principal Accounting Officer 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 periodic report of Market Data Consultants, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Wilson Cheung, the Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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/ Wilson CheungPrincipal Accounting Officer Date: January 15, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,004,742
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,534,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (130,000)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,696,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,199,459
<PP&E>                                             911,966
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (521,174)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,457,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,962,899
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           724,226
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,457,083
<SALES>                                          8,558,166
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,558,166
<CGS>                                            4,262,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,200,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 417,887
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (248,255)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 74,033
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (248,255)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.20



</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 31, 2012

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 11-14646 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00361-RWS-AJB-10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDUARDO JAVIER BERNAL, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Georgia

 ________________________

(May 31, 2012)

Before CARNES, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Eduardo Javier Bernal appeals his 78-month total sentence imposed after he

entered an open plea to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and one count of money laundering, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A). Bernal contends there was no evidence he knew the

money he was trafficking was from drugs, therefore making a sentencing

enhancement associated with such knowledge inappropriate.

“We review the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines de

novo and its findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Demarest, 570 F.3d

1232, 1239 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). Section 2S1.1(b)(1) of the

U.S.S.G. provides for a 6-level enhancement if “the defendant knew or believed

that any of the laundered funds were the proceeds of, or were intended to promote

. . . an offense involving the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a

controlled substance . . . .” We have upheld the application of the § 2S1.1(b)(1)

enhancement in a case where a yacht broker arranged for the sale of a yacht, in an

all-cash transaction, to buyers who claimed to be associated with drugs and were

likely to use the yacht to smuggle drugs. Demarest, 570 F.3d at 1243. In addition,

we have held a reasonable jury can infer that a defendant would not be entrusted

with a bag containing millions of dollars worth of drugs without knowing what the

bag contained. United States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d 1354, 1366 (11th Cir. 2001);

2
see also United States v. Quilca-Carpio, 118 F.3d 719, 722 (11th Cir. 1997)

(stating a “‘prudent smuggler’ is not likely to entrust such valuable cargo to an

innocent person without that person’s knowledge.”).

The district court did not clearly err by finding there were sufficient facts to

impose the enhancement under § 2S1.1(b)(1). Bernal received a large sum of

money, over $1 million, unlikely to be entrusted to an unknowing courier, under

secretive circumstances. He was instructed to deliver the money to Laredo, Texas,

a town on the border of Mexico. He suggested he might be killed over the loss of

the money after its seizure, and asked for a bundle of money “to run on.” He also

testified he knew the money was from some form of illegal activity, and the

circumstances of this case favored narcotics over other possible explanations.

Accordingly, we affirm Bernal’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

3
**CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TetragenexPharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date  hereof (the “Report”), Martin Schacker, as Co-ChiefExecutive Officer hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C.Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

|   | /s/ Martin Schacker                               Martin Schacker Co-Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|   | August 14, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |

12

----
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Viscorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 operation of the Company.





Dated:  July 12, 2007



/s/ Charles Driscoll



Name: Charles Driscoll

Title:  Chief Executive Officer





Dated:  July 12, 2007



/s/ Charles Driscoll

Name: Charles Driscoll

Title:  Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:10-cr-00435-JLL Document 14 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 25
|   | • | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|--------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Partnership. |
|--------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|       Date:      May 10, 2010 | /s/ JOHN B. WALKER                                                                                                                           |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                        | John      B. Walker                                                                                                                          |   |
|                                                        | Chief      Executive Officer of EV Management LLC,general      partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,general      partner of EV Energy Partners,L.P. |

----