alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
32.1


OFFICERS’
CERTIFICATIONS


Certification
of Chief Executive Officer







Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Douglas Emmett, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby
certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:






(i)
            the
      accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
      ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and






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







Dated:
      November 6, 2008
            By:
            /s/
      JORDAN L. KAPLANJordan
      L. KaplanPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer







A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.






The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
905 A.2d 877

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MATTHEW STANCIL, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

August 8, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted on the issue of defendant’s sentence, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce,*188 *N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).
Order entered March 20, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01181

- CV

JAMES H. GENTRY, Appellant

V.

BENJAMIN N. SMITH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judic ial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199

- 03888

- 2018



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 19, 2019 motion for extension of time to file reply

brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than April 15, 2019.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                            SUBSIDIARIES OF WESTCORP

Westran Services Corp., a California Corporation
Westcorp Investments, Inc., a California Corporation
Western Financial Bank, a Federal Savings Bank
WFS Financial Inc, a California Corporation
WFS Financial Auto Inc., a California Corporation
WFS Financial Auto 2, Inc., a California Corporation
WFS Investments, Inc., a California Corporation
WFS Funding, Inc., a California Corporation
WFS Receivables Corporation, a California Corporation
WestFin Insurance Agency, a California Corporation
Westhrift Life Insurance Company, an Arizona Corporation
WestFin Securities Corporation, a California Corporation
Westran Services Corp., a California Corporation
Westcorp Investments, Inc., a California Corporation
Western Reconveyance Company, Inc., a California Corporation
Western Consumer Services, Inc., a California Corporation
The Hammond Company, The Mortgage Bankers, a California Corporation
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Network Communications, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.January 15, 2008
    /s/  Gerard P. ParkerGerard P. ParkerSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW JERSEY,

INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

TEAMSTERS-EMPLOYERS LOCAL 945

PENSION FUND and TRUSTEES OF

TEAMSTERS-EMPLOYERS LOCAL 945

PENSION FUND,

 Defendants. 

 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Hon. Faith S. Hochberg

Civil No. 10-3984 (FSH)

ORDER

Date: October 4, 2010

IT IS on this 4th day of October, 2010,

ORDERED that at the scheduled October 5, 2010 hearing on Plaintiff’s application for a

preliminary injunction, the parties will be prepared to present to this Court any documents

governing the arbitrability of delinquent contributions disputes, both under the terms of the

Resolution at issue and under any other relevant terms.

/s/ Faith S. Hochberg

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

1

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 35 Filed 10/04/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 547
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerome Holloway, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 17]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy L. Kahn, J.), rendered June 9, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of nine years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. At the time defendant pleaded guilty, the prosecution failed to disclose that the arresting officer was the subject of an ongoing investigation. As a result of the investigation, the officer was arrested and charged with bribe receiving and related crimes days after defendant had entered his plea. We conclude that the nondisclosure does not require vacatur of the plea. The information concerning the officer’s misconduct in a case that was completely unrelated to defendant’s did not tend to establish defendant’s innocence. Rather, the information constituted impeachment material, and the Supreme Court of the United States has concluded that, at least with respect to a preindictment plea, “the Constitution does not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant” *(United States v Ruiz,*536 US 622, 633 [2002]). Furthermore, disclosure of this impeachment material could not have altered defendant’s decision to plead guilty in light of the strong evidence against him and the favorable plea offer presented by the prosecution *(see People v Martin,*240 AD2d 5, 8-10 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 856 [1998]). In particular, we note that the arresting officer was not even a necessary witness. The only admissible testimony that he could have given at trial was that he made an arrest, took a completely exculpatory statement from defendant, and conducted a lineup *(see People v Fernandez,*249 AD2d 3 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 897 [1998]).

*443We also reject defendant’s request for a remand for the purpose of reopening the suppression hearing. Although the officer in question was the sole witness at the hearing, we conclude that the impeachment material could not have changed the result. The hearing involved a standard lineup with no indicia of suggestiveness. Concur—Saxe, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-13-01007-CV

Tu Nguyen 

v.

SLK & Associates, LLC

NO. 13-CV-0796 IN THE 56TH DISTRICT COURT OF GALVESTON COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

SUPP CLK RECORD

RPT RECORD

SUPP CLK RECORD

CLK RECORD

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING

E-TXGOV FEE

UNKNOWN

$136.00

UNKNOWN

$82.00

$175.00

$20.00

$5.00

01/09/2014

01/07/2014

12/04/2013

12/02/2013

11/26/2013

11/26/2013

11/26/2013

UNKNOWN

PAID

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

UNK

ANT

UNK

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$418.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 
hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this July 24, 2015.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-20203

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAIRO ALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CR-210-2

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

December 16, 1999

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Jairo Alvarez has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Alvarez has filed a response

requesting to proceed pro se. Our independent review of the

brief, the record, and Alvarez’ response discloses no

nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 
No. 99-20203

-2-

Alvarez’ motion to proceed pro se is DENIED. See United States

v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LIAM PHILLIP CAVANAUGH

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM and SARAH LYNNE GOAD

, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 17

- 3318

[ December 6, 2018 ]

A ppeal from the State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Child Support

Program; L.T. Case Nos. CSE2001073948 and Dep. 06550019665AO.

Gloria C. Gonzalez of the Law Offices of Gloria C. Gonzalez, P.A.,

Hialeah, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior

Assistant Attorney General, Child Support Enforcement, Tallahassee, for

appellee Department of Revenue Child Support Program.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas April 20, 2022 No. 04-22-00148-CV Elvira JONES , Appellant

v. Jason Frank JONES , Appellee From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21-05-0410-CVA Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The court reporter responsible for filing the reporter’s record in this appeal has filed a notification of late record, stating that the appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the reporter’s record. We therefore ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court within ten days of the date of this order that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of April, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
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 Helix Wind, Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




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.







Date: July 27, 2011
/s/ James TiltonJames Tilton, Chief Operating Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 10.19

                                   JOHN CIUFO

                                  144 DALY ROAD

                            EAST NORTHPORT, NY 11731

                                                              February 1, 2000

Mr. Bert. E. Brodsky
26 Harbor Park Drive
Port Washington, NY  11050

                                   Re: OPTIONS

Dear Mr. Brodsky:

In connection with that Stock Option Agreement dated December 7, 1998 between us
wherein you granted me options to purchase  25,568  post-split  shares of common
stock of National Medical Health Card Systems,  Inc.  registered in your name at
an exercise price of $5.87 per share (the  "Options"),  I hereby  surrender such
Options effective immediately.

                                                              Very truly yours,



                                                              John Ciufo

JC\lms
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 quarterly report of WaterPure International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Paul S. Lipschutz, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
WaterPure International, Inc. and will be retained by WaterPure International,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.




Date:  February 23,
      2009
                By:
                /s/ PAUL
      S. LIPSCHUTZPaul
      S. LipschutzPrincipal
      Executive Officer
#### Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. *v.*Texas & P. Ry. *Co.*
      *1*
      *In re*Davis.

*(Circuit*Court, *E. D. Louisiana.*

May 28, 1887.)

Contract—Completion of—Carriers.

A shipper's order calling for a specific number of cars for a specified day will not, unaccepted by thd carriers, constitute a contract binding on either.

On report of Master on Petition of I. T. Davis, Claiming Damages.

*Sexton & Smith*and *I. H.*Kenvard, Jr., for petitioner.

*W. W. Howe,*for receivers.

Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.

Pardee, J.

This matter has been heard on exceptions to the master’s report recommending a dismissal of the claim. The master’s report fairly and fully sets forth the facts as shown by the evidence, and his legal conclusions on the facts are supported at eyery step by the authority of adjudged cases. As the case seems to me, the claimant has failed to establish the basis of his claim for damages, to-wit, a contract with the receivers to furnish him a specified number of cattle cars on a specified day. It may be taken as granted that the receiver’s station agent had authority, from the general scope of his agency, to bind the receivers in a contract to furnish cars, but it does not appear that he made any contract to that effect. A shipper’s order calling for a specific number of cars for a specified day wifi not, unaccepted by the carriers, constitute a contract binding on either. A contract of the kind referred to will bind the carrier to furnish the cars, and the shipper to furnish the goods to load the cars.

Under the evidence it is'apparent that the claimant did not intend to bind himself to furnish any certain number of cattle for shipment. In fact, he did not- know, at the time of the alleged first contract, how many cattle he Avould have to ship, or when he ivould be ready to ship them; and, Avhen he sent his order for cars, he ordered 75, Avhon he had cattle for only 48; and at the time of the second alleged contract he again makes application for 75 cars for himself and Beal, but fixes no particular day for shipment, and Avhen he brings the cattle in has enough only for about 40 cars.

It is therefore ordered that the exceptions to the master’s report be overruled; that the said report be in all respects confirmed; and that the said intervention be dismissed.
August 13 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RENDRICK ANTHONY CHE EKS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00676

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__ ______________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED , appellant pay all costs inc urred by reason of this appeal, and that this decision be certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS RESTATED SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF DIGITAL MICROWAVE
CORPORATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          27,585
<SECURITIES>                                    34,540
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,060
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,999
<INVENTORY>                                     73,029
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               237,045
<PP&E>                                          87,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 297,196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,422
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           610
<OTHER-SE>                                     225,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   297,196
<SALES>                                        345,116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               345,116
<CGS>                                          226,871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  226,871
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                98,514
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   356
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 856
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,857
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,818
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,818
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Medialink Worldwide Incorporated:

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
333-27207) on Form S-8 of Medialink  Worldwide  Incorporated of our report dated
February 24, 2004, except for note 4, which is dated April 14, 2004, relating to
the  consolidated  balance  sheets  of  Medialink  Worldwide   Incorporated  and
Subsidiaries  as of  December  31, 2003 and 2002,  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, 2003, which report appears in
the  December  31,  2003  annual  report  on Form  10-K of  Medialink  Worldwide
Incorporated.

                                                             /S/ KPMG LLP
                                                             -------------------


New York, New York
April 14, 2004