alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF MICHAEL KELLEHER


I, Michael Kelleher, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Quantum Companies, Inc.;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

(4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of the date within 90 days prior to filing date of this
     annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

(5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

(6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: March 25, 2005                     /s/ Michael Kelleher
                                                         -----------------
                                Michael Kelleher
                                                         President
Case 3:11-cv-02506-JAP-TJB Document 88 Filed 07/17/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1839
Case 3:11-cv-02506-JAP-TJB Document 88 Filed 07/17/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 1840
Case 3:11-cv-02506-JAP-TJB Document 88 Filed 07/17/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 1841
Case 3:11-cv-02506-JAP-TJB Document 88 Filed 07/17/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 1842
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 989-990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-166]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of the 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of 
the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, February 24, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Smiley at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-
231-2369.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of the 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, February 24, 2009, at 1 
p.m.

[[Page 990]]

Central Time. For more information, please contact Ellen Smiley. Ms. 
Smiley can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2369. If you would 
like to have the TAP consider a written statement, write to Ellen 
Smiley at 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or you 
can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: December 22, 2008.
Roy L. Block,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E9-166 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Case 2:11-cv-01953-KM-LDW Document 50 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 476
Case 2:11-cv-01953-KM-LDW Document 50 Filed 02/04/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 477
Case 2:11-cv-01953-KM-LDW Document 50 Filed 02/04/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 478
#### Selvanathan Lakshmanan, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Meenakshi Lakshmanan, Deceased, Respondent, v North Shore University Hospital et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[610 NYS2d 793]

—Motion by the appellants to strike certain parts of the respondent’s brief on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 27, 1991. By decision and order on motion dated January 26, 1994, the application was referred to the Justices hearing and determining the appeal.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted to the extent that the respondent’s arguments regarding copying charges in pages 17 through 19 of the brief are stricken, and is otherwise denied. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Nurideen Islam, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 820]

*1148Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ferrandino, J.), entered April 18, 2006 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner was convicted in 1984 of the crimes of murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree in connection with the shooting death of a man who refused to give money to him and his accomplices and is serving an aggregate prison term of 22 years to life. In December 2004, he made his first appearance before the Board of Parole for parole release. The Board denied him release and ordered him held for an additional 24 months. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. Although petitioner contends that the Board placed undue emphasis on the seriousness of his crimes, the record discloses that it also considered other relevant statutory considerations, including petitioner’s minimal criminal history, his clean prison disciplinary record, his many program accomplishments and his postrelease living arrangements, thereby complying with the mandates of Executive Law § 259-i *(see*Executive Law § 259-i [1] [a]; [2] [c] [A]; *Matter of Rivera v Dennison, 25*AD3d 856, 857 [2006]). The Board was not required to give each factor equal weight *(see Matter of Wood v Dennison,*25 AD3d 1056, 1057 [2006]; *Matter of De La Cruz v Travis,*10 AD3d 789, 790 [2004]), and we find no support in the record for petitioner’s assertion that the Board’s decision is the product of an informal executive policy of denying parole to violent felons *(see Matter of Rivera v Dennison, supra*at 857). Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner has not demonstrated a “ ‘showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” *(Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting *Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), we find no reason to disturb the Board’s determination. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Crew III, J.P, Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS Document 1001 Filed 02/13/08 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 7704
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS Document 1001 Filed 02/13/08 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 7705
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS Document 1001 Filed 02/13/08 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 7706
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS Document 1001 Filed 02/13/08 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 7707
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS Document 1001 Filed 02/13/08 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 7708
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS Document 1001 Filed 02/13/08 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 7709
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS Document 1001 Filed 02/13/08 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 7710
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS Document 1001 Filed 02/13/08 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 7711
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS Document 1001 Filed 02/13/08 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 7712
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS Document 1001 Filed 02/13/08 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 7713
Case 1:97-cv-05127-RBK-JS Document 1001 Filed 02/13/08 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 7714
Exhibit
      32





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, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Medialink Worldwide Incorporated (the
      "Company"), hereby certify to such officers’ knowledge, that the Company's
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (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.




Dated:
      March 31, 2008




/s/
              Laurence MoskowitzName:
              Laurence MoskowitzTitle:
              Chief Executive Officer





/s/
              Kenneth TorosianName:
              Kenneth TorosianTitle:
              Chief Financial Officer





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 Date: May 14, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Edward J. GildeaEdward J. GildeaChief Executive Officer and President
(Principal Executive Officer)
Case 2:11-cv-01953-KM-LDW Document 39 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 410
#### J. W. Rowley v. J. H. Wilkinson.

No. 162.

Invalid Tax Deed — *Tenant*— Agreement *to Pay Taxes.*A person who uses land without paying anything therefor, under an agreement made between the owner and a third party that said party should have the use of the land for the payment of the taxes, cannot acquire a valid tax title thereon under a sale for taxes levied for the year it was so used by him.

Error from Logan district court; Lee Monroe, judge.

Opinion filed September 7, 1898.

Reversed.

*O. H. Baily,*for plaintiff in error.

*K. E.*Willcockson, for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wells, J.:

This action was originally brought in. the district court of Logan county by Rowley against. Wilkinson, to recover the possession of certain lands, in that county. The defendant filed a general denial,, *436and on the issues thus formed a trial was had, judgment rendered and set aside, and a second trial granted. A second trial was had to the court, which resulted in a judgment for the defendant for costs. The matter is brought here for review.

The undisputed evidence in this case shows that the plaintiff is the owner of the land in question and entitled to the possession, unless the title was transferred to the defendant by his tax deed, which was based on a sale for the taxes for the year 1892. Luring the season of 1892, Louis Burk, who took the assignment from the county of the certificate on which the tax deed was founded, cultivated a portion of the land under an agreement made between the plaintiff and James Neil that said Louis Burk and James Neil should have the use of the land and should pay the taxes thereon. Louis Burk denies that he agreed to pay any taxes, but admits that he worked the land under a lease from Neil but paid nothing therefor... He also admits that he exercised authority over the land, in the interest of the owner, as late as 1894. "We do not think a valid tax deed can come through such a channel. In *Duffit v. Tuhan,*28 Kan. 293, the principle was announced that where a person, with the consent of the owner of- real estate, but without any agreement as to the payment of rent or taxes, goes into possession thereof and receives all the benefits, without paying or offering to pay rent therefor, such person cannot divest" the owner of the title to the property by purchasing it at a tax sale for taxes levied and payable while he was in the actual occupancy thereof. This is eminently correct and just, and compels a reversal of this case. From the record before us-, it seems that a preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that Neil and Burk agreed to pay the taxes, *437but we are not required or permitted to weigh the evidence. The evidence that is not contradicted is sufficient to require a reversal.

The judgment of the district court is reversed and a new trial directed.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Neil I. Salmon, certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the 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, as amended; and

2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Innophos Holdings, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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

The undersigned
expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: May 7, 2010



/S/ NEIL I. SALMONNeil I. Salmon
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed
as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Thomas J. O’Shea et al., Respondents, v Brendan Johnson, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 608]

The plaintiff Thomas J. O’Shea was operating a motor vehicle in which his wife, the plaintiff Edith M. O’Shea, was a passenger, when the vehicle was struck from behind by a motor vehicle operated by the defendant. After the plaintiffs commenced this action, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

The affirmed medical report prepared by Dr. Loren E. Rosenthal, a neurologist, which the defendant submitted in support of his motion insofar as it concerned Mr. O’Shea, failed to establish, prima facie, that he did not sustain a serious injury *(see Tchjevskaia v Chase,*15 AD3d 389 [2005]). Indeed, the report actually identified a triable issue of fact *(see*CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether Mr. O’Shea exhibited significant limitations in cervical range of motion as a result of the accident *(see*Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ submissions with regard to Mr. O’Shea *(see Tchjevskaia v Chase*15 AD3d at 389).

However, the affirmed medical report which Dr. Rosenthal prepared with regard to his examination of Mrs. O’Shea *615established, prima facie, that her injuries were not serious within the statutory definition *(see Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The affirmed medical report prepared by Dr. Arnold Goran, which was submitted in opposition to the motion insofar as it concerned Mrs. O’Shea, failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Dr. Goran found that she had full range of motion when he first examined her two months after the accident, and again almost six months after the accident. While Dr. Goran found a 20% reduction in range of motion in Mrs. O’Shea’s cervical spine nearly 18 months after the accident, he failed to causally relate that limitation to the accident *(see Verrelli v Tronolone,*230 AD2d 789 [1996]) or to explain the apparent inconsistency in his findings *(see Doran v Sequino,*17 AD3d 626, 627 [2005]). Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by Mrs. O’Shea on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.01

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT AND SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Niccolo M. de Masi, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Glu
Mobile Inc.; and

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.



|                       |  |     |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: October 12, 2012 |  | By: |  | /s/ Niccolo M. de Masi               
|                       |  |     |  | Niccolo M. de Masi                   
|                       |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
SIXING LIU ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (L. Judson Welle, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

appearing), and defendant Sixing Liu (James Tunick, Esq

appearing), for an order granting a continuance of the

proceedings in the above-captioned matter, and one continuance

having previously been granted by the Court pursuant to Title 18,

United States Code, Section 3161(h) (7) (A), and the defendant

being aware that he has a right to have the matter brought to

trial within 70 days of the date of his appearance before a

judicial officer of this court pursuant to Title 18 of the United

States Code, Section 3161(c) (1), and the defendant having

consented to the continuance and waived such right to the extent

of the continuance appearing below, and for good cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reasons:

(1) The Court previously ordered the defendant to file

pretrial motions by August 30, 2011;
time to evaluate the charges contained in any Superseding

Indictment that may be returned prior to having to file pretrial

motions;

(4) Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

3].6].(h)(7), the ends of justice served by granting the

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS, therefore, on this

day of August, 2011,

ORDERED that dates previously set in this matter are

hereby adjourned as follows:

(a) defendant’s motions shall be filed by Thursday,

November 10, 2011;

(b) the government’s response shall be filed by

Thursday, December 1, 2011;

(c) hearing on the motions shall be held on Wednesday,

December 7, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.; and

(ci) trial in matter shall be held Tuesday,

January 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.rn.;

2
ORDERED that the period from the date of this

order until January 10, 2012 shall be excludable in computingtime under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

HON. STANLEY R. CHESLER

United States District Judge

Form and entxy

consented to:

L. Judson Welle

Assistant U.S. Attorney

C eel for defendant Sixing Liu

3
order until January 10, 2012 shall be excludable in computing

time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

.

—

zY ,

Z’

KON. SThNLEY R. CHESLER

United States District Judge

Form and entry

consented to:

dsWelle’

Assis nt U.S. Attorney

James Tunick, Esq.

Counsel for defendant Sixing Liu

3
Exhibit 32.2

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 Mattmar Minerals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), I, Kirk M. Warshaw, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, as amended; and (2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


|Dated: October 10, 2008            
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|/s/ Kirk M. Warshaw                
|-----------------------------------
|Kirk M. Warshaw                    
|Chief Financial Officer            

A signed original of this certification 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.

---