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

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection withthe Annual Report of Independent Asset Management Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for theperiod ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Debra K. Amigone, Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

-  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 Company.

/s/ Debra K. Amigone                           

Debra K. Amigone

President and Chief AccountingOfficer

February 7, 2005
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc T. Ray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and   
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                      | MEDPRO SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC.
|--------------------- | ----------------------------
|                     
|                     
|Dated: April 16, 2009 | By:                         
|                      |                             
|                      |                             
|                      |                             

31

---
1 

Daniel Louis Grossman, Esq. 

11 Commerce Drive, Suite 308 

Cranford, New Jersey 07016 

(908) 272-4114 

-andAlan L. Glazner, Esq. 

123 North Union Avenue, Suite 305 

Cranford, New Jersey 07016 

(908) 272-1544 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

___________________________________________ 

CHRISTOPHER BALLERINI, ADMINISTRATOR 

OF THE ESTATE OF JUDITH BALLERINE, 

DECEASED, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 11-CV-898 (WJM) 

v. Civil Action

 

PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP AMENDED CERTIFICATION 

INCORPORATED, PSEG SERVICES PURSUANT TO 

CORPORATION, THE PENSION PLAN OF L. CIV. R. 11.2 

PUBLIC SERVICES ENTERPRISE GROUP 

INCORPORATED and THE 

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF THE 

PENSION PLAN OF PUBLIC SERVICES 

ENTERPRISE GROUP INCORPORATED. 

. 

 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________________ 

The undersigned certifies as follows: 

1. We are members of the Bar of this Court. 

Case 2:11-cv-00898-CCC-JAD Document 3-1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 32
2 

2. Pursuant to L. Civ. R. 11.2, we certify that, to the best of our knowledge, this 

matter is not the subject of any other action pending in any court or of any pending 

arbitration or administrative proceeding. 

Dated: February 23, 2011 /s/ Daniel Louis Grossman, Esq. 

 Daniel Louis Grossman, Esq. 

 -and- 

 /s/ Alan L. Glazner, Esq. 

 Alan L. Glazner, Esq. 

Case 2:11-cv-00898-CCC-JAD Document 3-1 Filed 02/24/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 33
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00255-CV

Gary Romano, Appellant

v.

Gary Newton, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY, 335TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 24,929, HONORABLE TERRY L. FLENNIKEN, JUDGE PRESIDING

S U P P L E M E N T A L O P I N I O N

On February 9, 2006, the district court entered a post answer-default judgment against

appellant, Gary Romano, awarding appellee, Gary Newton, $176,150.68 in actual damages,

$6,216.21 in attorney’s fees, interest and costs. On February 27, 2006, Romano filed a motion for

new trial contending that he had inadequate notice of the trial setting and that the evidence was

insufficient to support the judgment. On April 20, 2006, the district court entered an order

overruling Romano’s motion for new trial. On September 6, 2007, we issued an opinion holding that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Romano’s motion for new trial because

there was sufficient evidence to enable the district court to conclude that Romano had received

timely notice of the trial setting. We also held that, while there was sufficient evidence to support

the judgment as to Newton’s sworn account claim, there was legally insufficient evidence to support

a judgment for Newton on his breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit claims, and there was
2

no evidence to support Newton’s attorney’s fee award. As the amount of Newton’s sworn account

was only $29,544.47, that claim could notsupport the judgment’s $176,250.68 award. Accordingly,

we suggested a remittitur of $146,606.21, the difference between the $176,250.68 awarded in the

judgment and the $29,544.47 supported by the evidence. See Tex. R. App. P. 46.3. We then

affirmed the district court’s judgment conditioned on Newton’s filing a remittitur of $146,606.21

with the clerk of the district court within thirty days of the date our opinion issued.

The thirty day period has since expired and no remittitur has been filed. Therefore,

in accordance with our September 6, 2007 opinion, we reverse the district court’s judgment and

remand the cause for a new trial on unliquidated damages and attorney’s fees.

________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Reversed and Remanded

Filed: December 7, 2007
|   | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: May 10, 2011 | /s/ RYUJI UENO                 |
|--------------------|--------------------------------|
|               | Ryuji Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., Ph.D. |
|               | Chief Executive Officer        |
|               | (Principal Executive Officer)  |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

 :

FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, :

INC., :

:

Plaintiff, : Civil Action No. 11-1539 (KSH)

:

v. :

:

GLYCOBIOSCIENCES, INC., : ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION

:

Defendant. :

____________________________________:

This matter having come before the Court by way of submission dated December 28,

2011, regarding a dispute concerning the defendant's obligation to provide a response to the

plaintiff's noninfringement contentions as required by the Pretrial Scheduling Order, dated

October 5, 2011, at 2, ¶ 3;

and the Court having considered the submission, the October 5, 2011 Order, and the

governing law;

and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion delivered on the record on December 30,

2011;

and for good cause shown;

IT IS ON THIS 30th day of December, 2011

ORDERED that the defendant's objection to having to provide responses to the plaintiff's

noninfringement contentions is overruled. To the extent a party asserts the adverse party

infringes a patent and the adverse party has served non-infringement contentions, then the party

who received non-infringement contentions shall provide responses to the non-infringement

1

Case 2:11-cv-01539-KSH -PS Document 62 Filed 01/03/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 813
contentions no later than January 17, 2012. If a complete response to the non-infringement

contentions is embodied in the infringement contentions, then the party shall so state; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no action will be taken on the dispute concerning the

confidentiality designation assigned to plaintiff's invalidity and noninfringement contentions.

s/Patty Shwartz 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:11-cv-01539-KSH -PS Document 62 Filed 01/03/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 814
FMC-2012.12.31-10K - Exh10.18








Exhibit 10.18


SECOND AMENDMENT OF
FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 
SALARIED EMPLOYEES' EQUIVALENT RETIREMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, FMC Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the FMC Technologies, Inc. Corporation Salaried Employees' Equivalent Retirement Plan (the “Plan”); 
WHEREAS, the Company now deems it necessary and desirable to amend the Plan in certain respects; and 
WHEREAS, this Second Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of the amendment; 
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue and in exercise of the powers reserved to the Company under Section 9 Amendment and Termination of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended in the following respects, effective June 1, 2010: 
•Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following paragraph to the end thereof which shall read as follows:


Notwithstanding any Plan provision to the contrary, a Participant's Excess Benefit shall include such other benefit accrual amounts, if any, as shall be determined by the Committee (as defined in Section 8) in its sole discretion.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed by a duly authorized representative this 22nd day of June 2010.  


FMC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




By: /s/ Mark J. Scott            


Its:  Vice President, Administration
#### Raymond F. Robertson, Appellant, v Paula E. Robertson, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 309]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), dated December 9, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, in effect, granted the defendant’s application to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal *687from the decision dated April 26, 2005, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the order dated December 9, 2005 *(see*CPLR 5520 [c]), the notice of appeal is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff commenced this action for divorce based on constructive abandonment (see Domestic Relations Law § 170 [2]). A nonjury trial was held, after which the Supreme Court, in effect, granted the defendant’s application to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court was correct.

The plaintiff testified that the defendant unjustifiably, willfully, and repeatedly refused to have sexual relations with him for more than one year while they still lived together, which, if credited, would constitute constructive abandonment. However, the plaintiff’s testimony was refuted by the defendant’s testimony. The contradictions in the testimony raised an issue of credibility, resolution of which is best left to the trier of fact who had the opportunity to observe the parties *(see Gunn v Gunn,*240 AD2d 704, 705 [1997]; *Schottenfeld v Schottenfeld, 152 AD2d 690 [1989]).*Accordingly, we decline to substitute our judgment as to credibility for that of the trial court *(see Gunn v Gunn, supra).*Miller, J.P., Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
BDDB01 6624821v1

BAKER & DANIELS LLP

300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

(317) 237-0300

Attorneys for Defendants

Zimmer, Inc., and Zimmer Holdings, Inc.

ISBN 11856-49 (J. Joseph Tanner, Esq.)

ISBN 25516-49 (Andrew L. Campbell, Esq.)

ISBN 28771-49 (John T. Schlafer, Esq.)

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case No.: 2:11-cv-01095 (SDW-MCA)

MDL No. 2158

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

RACHEL SATTINGER and STEPHEN 

SATTINGER,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ZIMMER, INC., ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC., 

and ZIMMER SOUTHWEST,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

TO: Clerk, United States District Court for 

the District of New Jersey

Martin Luther King Building and U.S. Courthouse

50 Walnut Street

Newark, NJ 07101

All Counsel of Record via ECF

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that J. Joseph Tanner, Esq., Andrew L. Campbell, Esq., and 

John T. Schlafer, Esq., of the law firm of Baker & Daniels LLP, hereby enter appearances as counsel 

for Defendants Zimmer, Inc., and Zimmer Holdings, Inc., in the above-captioned matter. A request 

is hereby made that all notices given or required to be given in this case and all pleadings and other 

papers filed in this matter be served upon this counsel at the address and/or electronic mail address 

listed below:

Case 2:11-cv-01095-SDW -MCA Document 34 Filed 04/21/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 431
2

BDDB01 6624821v1

J. Joseph Tanner, Esq.

BAKER & DANIELS LLP

300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-237-0300

joe.tanner@bakerd.com

Andrew L. Campbell, Esq.

BAKER & DANIELS LLP

300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-237-0300

andrew.campbell@bakerd.com

John T. Schlafer, Esq.

BAKER & DANIELS LLP

300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-237-0300

john.schlafer@bakerd.com

BAKER & DANIELS LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

Zimmer, Inc., and Zimmer Holdings, Inc.

By: 

J. Joseph Tanner, Esq.

s/ J. Joseph Tanner

A Member of the Firm

By: 

Andrew L. Campbell, Esq.

s/ Andrew L. Campbell

An Associate of the Firm

By: 

John T. Schlafer, Esq.

s/ John T. Schlafer

An Associate of the Firm

Dated: April 21, 2011

Case 2:11-cv-01095-SDW -MCA Document 34 Filed 04/21/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 432
3

BDDB01 6624821v1

I certify that on April 21, 2011, a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance was 

filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the 

Court's electronic filing system: 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Edward J. Fanning, Jr.

efanning@mccarter.com

Zane Christian Riester

zriester@mccarter.com

Joel L. Herz

joel@joelherz.com

I further certify that on April 21, 2011, a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance 

was mailed, by first-class mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed, to the following: 

Sara Marie Athen

Snell & Wilmer LLP

1 Arizona Ctr

400 E Van Buren

Phoenix, AZ 85004-0001

/s/ John T. Schlafer

Case 2:11-cv-01095-SDW -MCA Document 34 Filed 04/21/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 433
#### Mary E. Faulkner, Appellant, v 609-611-615 Owner’s Corp., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[852 NYS2d 790]

*597The defendant 609-611-615 Owner’s Corp. (hereinafter the defendant), a cooperative corporation, established its entitlement to summary judgment by showing that it did not reject the plaintiffs application to purchase an apartment in a cooperative development in violation of Executive Law § 296, based on the plaintiffs sex, race, or marital status. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see McCarthy v St. Francis Hosp.,*41 AD3d 794 [2007]; *Cesar v Highland Care Ctr., Inc.,*37 AD3d 393, 394 [2007]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 2, 2017

No. 04-16-00252-CV

Jean Eckford HARDAWAY, Et al.,

Appellant

v.

Lou Eda Korth Stubbs NIXON, Et al.,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-09-0188-CVK

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellees’ briefs were originally due on February 23, 2017. There are two sets of 

appellees: the Stubbs Nixon appellees and Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, LP. Each 

appellee group has been granted two previous extensions to file their briefs, the latest until April 

26, 2017. On April 26, 2017, appellees each filed separate motions requesting a third extension 

until May 26, 2017.

The motions are GRANTED and appellees are hereby ORDERED to file their respective 

briefs no later than May 26, 2017. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE 

GRANTED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of May, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION



I, Larry Reid, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cleartronic, 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. I am the only certifying officer responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my 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;



(b)

Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the Board of Directors:



(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.



Date: May 20, 2013



/s/ Larry Reid____________

Larry Reid, Principal Financial Officer
g

cr

00084

SRC

CONSENT ORDER

JOHN B. FROH;L1NG

THIS MATTER, being presented to the Ccnrt on behalf of John B. Frohling

by counsel, S. M. Chris Franzblau of Franzblau Dratch, PC. for leave to permit

John B. Frohling to attend the graduation ceremony of his graridson, William

FrohIing, at Glen Ridge High School on June 22, 2012 and by consent of the

Government and the US.Pr9tionOffice and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this Z’day of June, 2012

ORDERED that John 13, Frohling shall be permitted to be released from

house arrest from 7:00 pm. on June 22, 2012 until 10:30 pm. at which time house

arrest shall continue. 

Hon. JuUge R. Chesier

CO $ENTEDTO:

Stanley Whe tone L’ trrrifl

US. Probation Officer Assistant U.S. Attorney

I
WRITE. PS DIRECT DIAL: 9731 537 2b4 .S

WEB: SE:

June 14, 2012

Via Fax and Electronic Mail

judce Stanley R. Chesler

US District Court of New Jersey

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal / —

Building & U S Couithouse 1 f

50 Walnut Street, Court Room P0 08 / 1/

Newai k, New Jerse 07101

RE: U.S. v. John B. Frohling

Dear Judge Chesler:

I am writing this letter on behalf of my Client John B. Frohling.

This request relates to Mr. Frohling’s grandson William Frohling’s graduation from

Glen Ridge High School on June 22, 2012 at 7:30. He seeks permission to attend that

ceremony and return home on the same night June 22 at 10:00 PM.

As stated in my earlier letter Mr. Frohling has been under House Arrest since July

18, 2011 for a term of on.e year which is scheduled to end luly 18, 2012,

1\ iTham F Frohlmg is John B Frohlmg’c cHest iandson and thc tiist ia dcfulo

to graduate from high school. As I am sure you can imagine Mr. Frohling’s contact with

his family during this past year has been extremely limited and his confinement has visited

considerable hardship on all involved including his family and especially his grandson

William Frohling.
I respectfully request that Your Honor permit Mr. Frohling this privilege of

attending William’s graduation.

I appreciate Your Honor’s time and attention to this matter and respectfully

request Your Honor’s prompt consideration of Mr. Frohling’s request. if granted, he

will be in touch with his probation officer Mr. Stanley Whetstone (973) 223-0694 before

and after the ceremony and will return home promptly from Glen Ridge High School to

his residence in Jersey City by 10 PM on June 22, 2011

Please advise.

SMCF:catcc: Mr. John Frohling

Very respectfully