alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32 Chief Executive and Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C.,SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive and Financial Officer of Global Immune Technologies, Inc., (the Company), herby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended March  31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   Dated: November 12, 2010  /s/ Donald Perks CEO and CFO
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                                  CERTIFICATION
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
         OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of National Datacomputer, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002
(the "Form 10-KSB") of the Company 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: April 15, 2003                     /s/  John P. Ward
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          John P. Ward
                                          Chief Executive Officer


Dated: April 15, 2003                     /s/ Gerald S. Eilberg
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Gerald S. Eilberg
                                          Chief Financial 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Jose L. Linares

Mag. No. 11-182 (JLL)

v.

ORDER

ERVIS GJONI

This matter having come before the Court on the motion of

defendant Ervis Gjoni for reconsideration of sentence, and the Court

having considered the motion and the response of the United States

thereto, the Court makes the following findings:

(1) This Court lacks jurisdiction because the case is pending

with the Court of Appeals; and

(2) Regardless of jurisdiction, defendant has failed to

establish that he is eligible for a reconsideration or

correction of sentence.

F

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, this day of August, 2012, that,

pursuant to Rule 37 (a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

that said motion is DENIED b on the merits and for lack of

jurisdiction.

HO . JOSE L. LINARES

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cr-00182-JLL Document 58 Filed 08/17/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 168
##### 



Exhibit 12.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Satyam Computer Services Limited;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 company as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) 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 company 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 company, 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)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors
and the audit committee of the company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 company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 companys internal control over financial
reporting.
 Dated: April 28, 2006
    
    
    
    /s/ Srinivas V.Director and Senior Vice President& Chief Financial Officer
#### J. B. Remington v. A. K. Sellers.

No. 348.

*Agency*— Commission. When a contract of sale has been made by principal and purchaser, the right of the agent who negotiated the contract of sale to recover his commission, in the absence of fraud or deceit on his part, cannot be defeated by the failure of title on the part of the principal.

Error from Miami district court; John T. Burris, judge.

Opinion filed June 14, 1899.

Affirmed.

*Sperry Baker,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. F. Simpson,*for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Schoonover, J.:

This action was commenced by J. K. Sellers against J. B. Remington, before a justice of the peace, to recover $250, for services rendered as agent in the sale of real property. The case was appealed to the district court of Miami county, tried by the court without a jury, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff below, J. K. Sellers, for the amount claimed. The finding and judgment of the trial court are fully sustained by the evidence.

It is contended, however, that the contract for the sale of the land entered into by J. B. Remington and Samuel R. Stillman, the proposed purchaser, included in the description of the real estate the homestead of Remington, and that the wife of Remington did not sign the contract; that the contract is void, and that, there could be no sale. That a contract made by the husband, without the consent of the wife, to convey the homestead, is void, is settled in this state. *(Thimes v. Stumpff,*33 Kan. 53, 5 Pac. 431; *Hodges v. Farnham,*49 id. 777, 31 Pac. 606.)

*807This action is on a separate and independent contract for personal services as agent of J. B. Remington, and when the sale was completed, the agent, Sellers, was entitled to his commission, and the court so found. If Remington had no authority to sell the land, it would not release him from his obligation to his agent. The agent acting in good faith is not responsible for the failure of title. *(Lockwood v. Halsey,*41 Kan. 166, 21 Pac. 98.)

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Case 3:11-mj-02518-DEA   Document 14   Filed 09/20/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 26

Case 3:11-mj-02518-DEA   Document 14   Filed 09/20/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 27
|   | • | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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. |
|--------|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                         |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Date: August 14, 2009                                                                   |   |   |
|                                                                                         |   |   |
| /s/    KEVIN HOGGE               |   |   |
| Kevin Hogge                                                                                  |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                                                                      |   |   |
| (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |   |   |

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16608]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,700]


Weyerhaeuser NR Company, Raymond Lumbermill, Raymond, WA; Notice 
of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated June 23, 2009, the International Association 
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Woodworkers District Lodge W1 
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination 
regarding workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to 
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was 
issued on June 5, 2009. The Notice of Determination was published in 
the Federal Register on June 18, 2009 (74 FR 28961).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of softwood dimensional lumber 
(hemlock) did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the 
subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information regarding imports of softwood dimensional lumber 
and alleged that the subject firm might have increased imports of 
softwood dimensional lumber in the relevant period.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of July 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-16608 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Semm *v.*Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

February 14, 1887.)

Life Insurance—Answers of Applicant not Warranties.

An applicant for life insurance, under Ite contract in this case, undertakes to answer the questions put to him according to his knowledge or reasonable belief, and not to misrepresent or suppress known facts, but does not warrant the absolute truth of his answers.

At Law.

*Charles Steckler,*for plaintiff.

*Morris Goodhart,*for defendant.

Shipman, J.

The question of law is whether, under Semm’s application to Humboldt Lodge for membership therein, and the certificate which he received from said lodge, he warranted the truth of the answer which he gave to the question, “Have you been rejected by the medical examiner of any lodge or society?” In my opinion, he was required, under the contract, to answer the question according to his knowledge or reasonable means of belief, and not to misrepresent or suppress known facts, but that he did not warrant the absolute truth of his answers. The reason of the opinion is contained in the applicant’s agreement in his printed application for membership.

As stated when the motion for a new trial was made, I have no objection to the verdict on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence.

The motion for a new trial is denied.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00158-CV

Melissa Marie Garcia

v.

David R. De Jesus

On Appeal from the

156th District Court of San Patricio County, Texas

Trial Cause No. S-13-5317CV-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in accordance with its opinion. Each party shall bear 

their own costs relating to this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 16, 2015.
S06A0296.

#### COLWELL v. THE STATE.

(627 SE2d 2)

Order of the Court.

It appearing that the writ of certiorari in this case was improvidently granted, the grant of certiorari in Case No. S05Cl576is hereby vacated, and the appeal in S06A0296 is dismissed.

*292Ordered February 27, 2006.

*Virgil L. Brown & Associates, EricD. Hearn, Ronald J. Ellington,*for appellant.

*Scott L. Ballard, District Attorney, Cindy L. Spindler, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Balch & Bingham, J. Tom Morgan,*amicus curiae.

*All the Justices concur, except Sears, C. J., Hunstein, P. J., and Melton, J., who dissent.*

SEARS, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

After learning that the indictment in this case was undeniably tainted by the active participation of a grand juror who had been excused for cause,1 the State chose not to correct this obvious error, but rather to defend the current appeal on the hope that the situation would not warrant this Court’s attention. Now that the mistake has been fully aired before this Court, the State has promised that it will dismiss the faulty indictment and start anew. By vacating the grant of certiorari, however, the majority permits the State’s conduct to evade review. For this reason, I cannot join today’s ruling.

I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Hunstein joins in this dissent.

1

 See generally *Colon v. State,*275 Ga. App. 73, 78 (619 SE2d 773) (2005) (“the presence of unauthorized persons . . . during grand jury deliberations should be forbidden”).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

----------------------------X 

ELIZABETH J. MELOSKI, etc., 

 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 11-0013WJM 

 

v.

 ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

AMSHER COLLECTION SERVICES, 

et als,

 Defendants, 

----------------------------X

The parties having notified the Court that the above

action has been settled,

It is on this 25 day of July 2011 th

ORDERED that this matter be and is hereby dismissed without

costs and with prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown

within sixty (60) days, to reopen the action if the settlement is

not consummated.

s/William J. Martini

 _____________________________

 WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-00013-WJM-MF Document 22 Filed 07/25/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 95
S06A0515.

#### WILSON v. BRAY.

(630 SE2d 395)

Decided May 17, 2006

Reconsideration denied June 12, 2006.

HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice.

This case is controlled by our opinion in *Wilson v. Windsor,*280 Ga. 576 (630 SE2d 367) (2006). The record establishes that appellee Bray, like the probationer in *Wilson v. Windsor,*did not meet the criteria for confinement in a probation detention center under OCGA § 42-8-35.41 and thus his confinement in such a facility was unauthorized. Wil*son v. Windsor,*supra. Accordingly, we affirm the habeas corpus court and remand for imposition of a new sentence. Id.

*Judgment affirmed and case remanded with direction.*

*All the Justices concur, except Carley, Hines and Melton, JJ., who dissent.*

Bray pled guilty to (1) misdemeanor obstruction of an officer, (2) driving on a suspended license, (3) no proof of insurance and (4) improper tag. He was sentenced to twelve months probation on all four counts; the period for Counts 2 and 4 were to run concurrent with the probation for Count 1. He was also sentenced to 30 days in jail on consecutive weekends for Count 2. His probation was revoked approximately a year after his sentence because: he failed to report to probation officers; failed to pay required fines, surcharges, and probation supervision fees; failed to participate in a GED program or provide proof of attendance; and failed to serve the 30 days in jail on consecutive weekends. As a result, the trial court ordered Bray to serve at least 305 days, but not more than 365 days, in a probation detention center.

Melton, Justice,

dissenting.

For the reasons set forth in my dissent in *Wilson v. Windsor,*280 Ga. 576 (630 SE2d 367) (2006), I believe that the majority erroneously bases its decision on a misreading of those statutes allowing for an expanded use of probation detention centers in a situation where the misdemeanant’s probation has already been revoked due to the inability to successfully complete routine probation. Accordingly, I dissent to the majority’s summary affirmance of the habeas court and to the remand for imposition of a different sentence.

I am authorized to state that Justice Carley and Justice Hines join in this dissent.

*595
      *Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Chad E. Jacobs, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellant.

*Daniel C. Chapman III,*for appellee.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-1601

Lower Tribunal No. 2008-CF-15374-A-O

_____________________________

TERRELLE A. TULLIS,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal Pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Renee A. Roche, Judge.

July 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

NARDELLA, SMITH and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.

Terrelle A. Tullis, Crawfordville, pro se. 

No appearance for Appellee. 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Case 2:11-cr-00177-DMC Document 22 Filed 03/27/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 50
Case 2:11-cr-00177-DMC Document 22 Filed 03/27/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 51
Case 2:11-cr-00177-DMC Document 22 Filed 03/27/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 52
Case 2:11-cr-00177-DMC Document 22 Filed 03/27/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 53
Case 2:11-cr-00177-DMC Document 22 Filed 03/27/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 54
Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 1 of 24 PageID: 1099

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 2 of 24 PageID: 1100

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 3 of 24 PageID: 1101

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 4 of 24 PageID: 1102

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 5 of 24 PageID: 1103

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 6 of 24 PageID: 1104

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 7 of 24 PageID: 1105

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 8 of 24 PageID: 1106

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 9 of 24 PageID: 1107

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 10 of 24 PageID: 1108

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 11 of 24 PageID: 1109

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 12 of 24 PageID: 1110

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 13 of 24 PageID: 1111

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 14 of 24 PageID: 1112

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 15 of 24 PageID: 1113

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 16 of 24 PageID: 1114

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 17 of 24 PageID: 1115

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 18 of 24 PageID: 1116

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 19 of 24 PageID: 1117

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 20 of 24 PageID: 1118

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 21 of 24 PageID: 1119

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 22 of 24 PageID: 1120

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 23 of 24 PageID: 1121

Case 3:11-cv-01447-FLW-TJB   Document 39   Filed 05/16/13   Page 24 of 24 PageID: 1122
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  D O S UNG U HM ; E UN S OOK U HM , a married couple, individually and No. 06-35672 for all others similarly situated, D.C. No.

Plaintiffs-Appellants, CV-06-00185-RSM v. Western District of



# 

H UMANA I NC ., a Delaware Washington, corporation; H UMANA H EALTH P LAN Seattle I NC ., a Kentucky corporation doing ORDER business as Humana,

Defendants-Appellees. 

# 

Filed July 22, 2009

Before: Betty B. Fletcher, Richard A. Paez and Marsha S. Berzon,* Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Appellees’ request for reconsideration shall be treated as a petition for panel rehearing and is GRANTED. The opinion filed on August 25, 2008 and reported at 540 F.3d 980 (9thCir. 2008) is WITHDRAWN and shall not be cited as precedent. The petition for rehearing en banc is moot. The panel will file a new disposition in due course.

*Due to the unavailability of Senior District Judge William Schwarzer, Judge Berzon has been randomly drawn as a replacement judge.

9381PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.