alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan Jaramillo, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 890]

*836Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court’s determination to designate him a level two sex offender is supported by clear and convincing evidence, and thus, should not be disturbed *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]; *People v Wright,*37 AD3d 797 [2007]; Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 11-12 [2006 ed]). The defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence of the existence of mitigating factors warranting a downward departure from his presumptive risk level *(see People v Martinez,*39 AD3d 835 [2007]; *People v Guaman, 8*AD3d 545 [2004]). Miller, J.P., Covello, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.
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 this quarterly report of Network Communications, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 6, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Gerard P. Parker, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to my knowledge:






(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
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.



















January
      15, 2010
            /s/ Gerard P.
      ParkerGerard
      P. Parker
              Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
**ICIM Services***Partners in Risk Management*

 

December 3, 2009

 

Mr. Scott Stroh  Legal Counsel  Saturna Capital Corporation  1300 N. State Street  Bellingham, WA 98225

**RE: ICI Mutual Investment Company Blanket Bond No. 89265109B ("Bond")****D&O/E&O Liability Insurance Policy No. 89265109D ("Policy")**

Dear Mr Stroh:

As discussed, I am hereby confirming that the share of total premium for Blanket  Bond and D&O/E&O coverage allocated to each Investment Company Insured  is less than the premium such company would have to pay if it had purchased  separate policies from ICI Mutual, as explained in our other letter dated today.

Further, we estimate that Amana Mutual Funds Trust would pay approximately  $75,000 for a Policy with a limit of $3,000,000 while Saturna Investment Trust  would pay approximately $25,000 for a Bond with a limit of $1,960,000.

Further, we estimate that the Amana Mutual Funds Trust would pay approximately  $71,000 for a Policy with a limit of $3,000,000 while the Saturna Investment  Trust would pay approximately $25,000 for a Policy with a limit of $1,000,000.  Lastly, Saturna Capital Corp. would pay approximately $35,000 for a $1,000,000  Policy.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 202/326-5479.

Regards,

/s/Maggie Sullivan  Senior Underwriter

 

 

 

*1401 H Street, NW • Washington, DC  2005 • 800.643.4246 • Fax: 202.682.2425*
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Independent Auditors’ Consent**

 

The Board of Directors 

Orchid BioSciences,Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements No. 333-53118 and No. 333-76744 on Form S-8 and No. 333-60582, No. 333-85550, No. 333-98825, No. 333-105732 and No. 333-111892 on Form S-3 of Orchid BioSciences, Inc. of our report dated February 27, 2004, except as to thethird paragraph of Note 25, which is as of March 23, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Orchid BioSciences, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations,comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2003 Annual Report on Form10-K of Orchid BioSciences, Inc. 

 

Our report refers to theCompany’s adoption of the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 141, “Business Combinations,” as of July 1, 2001 and of certain provisions of SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other IntangibleAssets,” as required for goodwill and other intangibles resulting from business combinations consummated after June 30, 2001, and to the full adoption as of January 1, 2002 of the provisions of SFAS No. 142. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Princeton, New Jersey 

March 26, 2004
Case 1:11-cr-00356-RMB Document 87 Filed 04/10/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 880
Case 1:11-cr-00356-RMB Document 87 Filed 04/10/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 881
Case 1:11-cr-00356-RMB Document 87 Filed 04/10/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 882
Case 1:11-cr-00356-RMB Document 87 Filed 04/10/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 883
Case 1:11-cr-00356-RMB Document 87 Filed 04/10/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 884
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.

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


In connection with the Annual Report of OSK CAPITAL III CORP.(the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis Mailhot,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, 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.

Dated:  April 7, 2005

                                    /s/ Francis Mailhot
                                    ------------------------
                                    Francis Mailhot,
                                    Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
32.2


OFFICERS’
CERTIFICATIONS


Certification
of Chief Financial 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 June 30, 2009 (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.







Date:  August
      6, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      WILLIAM KAMERWilliam
      KamerChief
      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.




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.
Chart 3-6. Displacement rates rise during recessions

3.9

3.1 3.1

2.4

3.1

3.9

3.3

2.9

2.5 2.5

3.8

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1981-82 1983-84 1985-86 1987-88 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94 1995-96 1997-98 1999-

2000

2001-

2002

Displacement rate

NOTE: Displaced workers are persons 20 years and older who lost or left jobs they had held for at least 3 years because their plant 

or company closed or moved, there was insufficient work for them to do, or their positions or shifts were abolished. The 2-year

displacement rates shown here are the most recent data available. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 3-6. Displacement rates rise during recessions

• The displacement rate—which reflects the likelihood of job loss due to plant 

or company closings, reduced work loads, or the abolishment of positions or 

shifts—increases during recessions and falls during recoveries. 

• The risk of job loss was higher during the recessions of 1981-82, 1990-91, and 

2001 than during other years. As labor market conditions improved following 

the two earlier downturns, the risk of job loss due to displacement declined.
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

27. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, and age

[Numbers in thousands]

Reason

Total,

16 years

and over

Men,

20 years

and over

Women,

20 years

and over

Both sexes,

16 to 19

years

2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,001 12,947 2,819 6,118 2,435 5,804 746 1,025

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 2,786 9,770 1,548 4,837 1,132 4,507 106 426

On temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823 6,371 457 2,917 324 3,121 42 333

Not on temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,963 3,399 1,091 1,920 807 1,386 64 92

Permanent job losers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,343 2,655 736 1,480 569 1,107 37 68

Persons who completed temporary jobs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 744 355 440 238 279 26 25

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 814 683 418 343 344 296 52 44

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,810 1,969 708 817 836 872 265 281

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591 526 144 121 123 130 323 275

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Total unemployed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 46.4 75.5 54.9 79.1 46.5 77.6 14.2 41.5

On temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.7 49.2 16.2 47.7 13.3 53.8 5.6 32.5

Not on temporary layoff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.7 26.3 38.7 31.4 33.2 23.9 8.6 9.0

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 5.3 14.8 5.6 14.1 5.1 7.0 4.3

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.2 15.2 25.1 13.3 34.3 15.0 35.5 27.4

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.8 4.1 5.1 2.0 5.1 2.2 43.3 26.8

UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE

CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs. . . 1.7 6.1 1.8 5.9 1.5 6.2 1.8 7.4

Job leavers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.8

Reentrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 4.5 4.9

New entrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 5.5 4.8

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
¥ Crim, No. 11-341 (SDW)
LAWRENCE J. BROWN : CONTINUANCE ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on the joint application of Paul J. Fishman, United
States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (by Mala Ahuja Harker, Assistant U.S. Attorney),
and defendant Lawrence J. Brown (by Patrick McMahon, Esq.) for an order granting a continuance
of the proceedings in the above-captioned matter for a period of time from September 30, 2012 to
November 30, 2012 to allow the parties to have the plea entered, and five continuances having
previously been granted by the Court pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section
3161(h)(7)(A), so that the parties could attempt to resolve the matter and thereby avoid a possible
trial, and the defendant being aware that he has the right to have the matter tried within seventy
days of the date of his arraignment pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(b), and
the defendant having consented to the continuance and waived such right, and for good cause
shown,

It IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for the
following reasons:

(1) The defendant has signed a plea agreement and both the United States and

the defendant desire additional time to have that plea entered, which would render a trial of this

matter unnecessary;


(2) Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(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. ip
IT IS, therefore, on this d day of Septémber/October, 2012,

ORDERED that this action be, and it hereby is, continued for a period from
September 30, 2012 to November 30, 2012; and it is further
ORDERED that the period from September 30, 2012 through and including

November 30, 2012 shall be excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

IGENTON
UDGE

Form and entry

Mala Ahuja Harker”
Assistant U.S. Attorney

GES aa peel
Rattck MgMahon sq. Gr Pam
fant Lawrence J. Brown
#### Seth ABRAHAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARD DRIVE PRODUCTIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2013-1126.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 11, 2013.

Aaron K. McClellan, Esq., Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Fenney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brett Langdon Gibbs, Esq., Prenda Law, Inc., Mill Valley, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before PROST, MOORE and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

The court considers whether this appeal should be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Seth Abrahams filed a notice of appeal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, requesting review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of a judgment dismissing his claim seeking declaratory relief for copyright infringement against Hard Drive Productions, Inc. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The district court clerk’s office transmitted the notice of appeal to this court. Fed. *983R.App. P. 3(d)(1) states that the clerk of the district court “must promptly send a copy of the notice of appeal and of the docket entries ... to the clerk of the court of appeals named in the notice.” Because of the mandatory language of Rule 3(d)(1), we must transfer this appeal to the Ninth Circuit, i.e., the clerk of the district court was required to send the notice of appeal to that court.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The appeal is transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
EXHIBIT
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Grace 2,
      Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ending February 29,
      2008 (the “Report”), I, Virginia K. Sourlis, the Chief Executive Officer and
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:





1.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated:
      April 3, 2008





By:
            /s/
              Virginia K. SourlisVirginia
              K. SourlisChief
              Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer)(Principal Financial
              Officer)
Exhibit 12.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Fumiya Hoshino, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Crayfish Co., Ltd. (the “Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by theannual report that has materially affected the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;
5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date:  April 12, 2005 By:  /s/ Fumiya Hoshino    Fumiya Hoshino   Principal officer of administration department
EXHIBIT 14Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmThe Supervisory BoardInfineon Technologies AG:We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (No.333-11670; No. 333-12952; No. 333-13566; No. 333-13856 and No. 333-104935) of Infineon TechnologiesAG and subsidiaries of our report dated November 15, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of Infineon Technologies AG and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2005 and 2006, and therelated consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of theyears in the three-year period ended September 30, 2006, which report appears in the annual reportof Infineon Technologies AG on Form 20-F for the 2006 financial year.Munich, GermanyNovember 28, 2006KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft*Aktiengesellschaft**Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft*
#### Cheryl Jackson, Respondent, v Jamaica First Parking, LLC, Appellant, and City of New York, Respondent.

[851 NYS2d 892]

The Supreme Court correctly denied the appellant’s motion as untimely, as the appellant failed to demonstrate “good cause” for making its motion after the 120-day deadline imposed by CPLR 3212 (a) had passed *(see Brill v City of New York,*2 NY3d 648 [2004]; *Coty v County of Clinton,*42 AD3d 612 [2007]). The record contains no proof that outstanding discovery prevented the appellant from making a timely motion for summary judgment *(see Espejo v Hiro Real Estate Co.,*19 AD3d 360 [2005]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Mastro, J.E, Florio, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41133

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

 

PARMENO BERNAL-FLORES, also known as Jaime

Gutierrez-Penaloza, 

 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:03-CR-294-ALL

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Parmeno

Bernal-Flores has requested leave to withdraw from this appeal

and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Bernal-Flores has received a copy of counsel’s

motion and brief but has not filed a response. Our independent

review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous

issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
No. 04-41133

-2-

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and

the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.