alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Spear & Jackson, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Patrick J.
Dyson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Patrick J. Dyson
--------------------
Patrick J. Dyson
Chief Financial Officer

January 15, 2007
Exhibit 32

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 Annual Report of CTT International Distributors Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sajid Kapadia, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to s.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; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly represents, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.







/s/ SAJID KAPADIASajid Kapadia,

Chief Executive Officer

and Chief Financial Officer 
May 15, 2007
#### In the Matter of Andrzej Tercjak, Respondent, v Jadwiga Tercjak, Appellant. Peter C. Lomtevas, Nonparty Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 454]

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in imposing sanctions and costs upon counsel for the mother, Peter C. Lomtevas, for making frivolous motions to impose sanctions and costs upon the Law Guardian and the father’s counsel. The record supports the Family Court’s determination that the motions were completely without merit in law or fact, and were made primarily to harass or maliciously injure another *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; *Greene v Doral Conference Ctr. Assoc.,*
      *77418 AD3d 429, 431 [2005]; *Kucker v Kaminsky & Rich,*7 AD3d 491, 492 [2004]; *Tyree Bros. Envtl. Servs. v Ferguson Propeller,*247 AD2d 376, 377 [1998]). In support of the motions, Lomtevas submitted, inter alia, affidavits from a doctor that are rife with unfounded, gratuitously offensive, and utterly unacceptable attacks upon counsel for the father, the Law Guardian, and the Family Court *(see Matter of Winston,*243 AD2d 638 [1997]; *Matter of Jemzura v Mugglin,*207 AD2d 645 [1994]). Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Carni, JJ., concur.
#### Read *v.*Williams, for use, etc.

Where an attachment, which had been levied upon live stock, was afterwards dismissed because no declaration had been filed as required by law, the levying officer had no legal right to sell the animals to reimburse himself for the expenses of keeping them, and it was error for the court to so order upon his application. Under section 3696 of the code, the expenses of keeping the animals were a part of the costs of the case, for which the party who prevailed in the action was not liable. The levying officer should look for his reimbursement to the attachment bond, one of the conditions of which made the plaintiff in attachment and his surety liable for the costs, in the event the former failed to recover.

November 12, 1894.

Petition. Before Judge Van Epps. City court of Atlanta. March term, 1894.

Frazer & Hynds, for plaintiff in error.

Calhoun, King & Spalding, *contra.*

Atkinson, Justice.

The issue involved in this case being controlled by the principles declared in the case of *Ward*v. *Barnes, sheriff, et al.,*decided at this term, no opinion or statement of facts, further than as stated in the head-notes, is necessary. *Judgment reversed.*
EXHIBIT C 

TO THE DECLARATION 

OF DIANE C. RAGOSA, ESQ. IN 

SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF ANTICIPATION 

OF CLAIMS 1, 2 AND 5 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,662,787 

Case 2:11-cv-03781-SRC-CLW Document 499-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 108801
VYVANSE_JDG00050430

Case 2:11-cv-03781-SRC-CLW Document 499-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 108802
VYVANSE_JDG00050431

Case 2:11-cv-03781-SRC-CLW Document 499-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 108803
VYVANSE_JDG00050432

Case 2:11-cv-03781-SRC-CLW Document 499-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 108804
VYVANSE_JDG00050433

Case 2:11-cv-03781-SRC-CLW Document 499-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 108805
VYVANSE_JDG00050434

Case 2:11-cv-03781-SRC-CLW Document 499-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 108806
VYVANSE_JDG00050435

Case 2:11-cv-03781-SRC-CLW Document 499-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 108807
VYVANSE_JDG00050436

Case 2:11-cv-03781-SRC-CLW Document 499-4 Filed 02/21/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 108808
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Syndication, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,
      Mrutyunjaya S. Chittavajhula., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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
              __, 2007
            *By:*
            */s/
                Mrutyunjaya S. Chittavajhula.**Mrutyunjaya
              S. Chittavajhula.**Chief
                Financial Officer*
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

13-1490

ASTRAZENECA AB, AKTIEBOLAGET HASSLE,

ASTRAZENECA LP, KBI INC., and KBI-E INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

HANMI USA, INC., HANMI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,

HANMI FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD.,

and HANMI HOLDINGS CO., LTD.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in No. 11-CV-0760, United 

States District Judge Joel A. Pisano.

MANDATE

 In accordance with the judgment of this Court, entered December 19, 2013, and pursuant to Rule 41(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandate is hereby issued.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Daniel E. O'Toole

Daniel E. O'Toole 

Clerk of Court

cc: Jay I. Alexander

Mark Boland

Clerk of Court, District of New Jersey (Trenton)

Michael R. Dzwonczyk

Bruce C. Haas

Blair Martin Jacobs

Christopher Paulraj

Renita Rathinam

Henry John Renk

Joshua I. Rothman

Eric Ritland Sonnenschein

Patrick Stafford

Einar Stole

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 393 Filed 03/06/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 16432 Case: 13-1490 Document: 66 Page: 1 Filed: 03/06/2014
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 
 CERTIFICATE OF DISSOLUTION 
 OF 

SYCAMORE NETWORKS, INC. 
  

 
 Pursuant to
Section 275 of the General 
 Corporation Law of the State of Delaware 

 
  

Sycamore Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), hereby certifies as follows: 

FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Sycamore Networks, Inc. 
 SECOND: The date of filing of the Corporation’s original Certificate of Incorporation with the Secretary of State is February 17, 1998. 

THIRD: The dissolution of the Corporation was authorized by the Board of Directors on October 22, 2012 and by the stockholders of
the Corporation on January 29, 2013. 
 FOURTH: The dissolution of the Corporation has been authorized by the Board of
Directors and by a majority of the stockholders of the Corporation entitled to vote on a dissolution, in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) of Section 275 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. 

FIFTH: The respective names and addresses of the directors and officers of the Corporation are as follows: 

DIRECTORS 
  

			
	 NAME
	  	 ADDRESS

		
	Gururaj Deshpande (Chairman)	  	220 Mill Road, Chelmsford, MA 01824
		
	Daniel E. Smith	  	220 Mill Road, Chelmsford, MA 01824
		
	Robert E. Donahue	  	220 Mill Road, Chelmsford, MA 01824
		
	Craig R. Benson	  	220 Mill Road, Chelmsford, MA 01824
		
	John W. Gerdelman	  	220 Mill Road, Chelmsford, MA 01824








 OFFICERS 

 

					
	 NAME
	  	 TITLE
	  	 ADDRESS

			
	Daniel E. Smith	  	President and Chief Executive Officer	  	 220 Mill Road
 Chelmsford, MA
01824

			
	Paul F. Brauneis	  	Vice President of Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer	  	 220 Mill Road
 Chelmsford, MA
01824

			
	Kevin J. Oye	  	Vice President, Systems and Technology	  	 220 Mill Road
 Chelmsford, MA
01824

			
	Alan R. Cormier	  	General Counsel and Secretary	  	 220 Mill Road
 Chelmsford, MA
01824

			
	Anthony Petrillo	  	Assistant Secretary	  	 220 Mill Road
 Chelmsford, MA
01824


 SIXTH: This Certificate of Dissolution shall become effective as of 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
March 7, 2013. 
 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Dissolution has been executed
this 7th day of March, 2013. 

 

							
	SYCAMORE NETWORKS, INC.
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Daniel E. Smith

		 		 	Name:	 	Daniel E. Smith
		 		 	Title:	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7869
CALVIN ANGELO COWARD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-634-FL) Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005 Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Angelo Coward, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Calvin Angelo Coward, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. SeeCoward v. Stansberry , No. CA-04-634-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 28, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

929 CA 12-00350 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

RJ TAYLOR GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

FAIRPORT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.

LINDENFELD LAW FIRM, P.C., CAZENOVIA (HARRIS LINDENFELD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT.
GATES & ADAMS, P.C., ROCHESTER (DANIEL P. ADAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered May 20, 2011. The order denied the motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment and denied the cross motion of defendant for summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: October 5, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PRIMEDIA Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kim R. Payne, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ KIM R. PAYNE                                 
|Kim R. Payne,                                    
|                                                 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                 

August 7, 2009

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
**EXHIBIT 10.8**
**Summary of Approved 2004 and 2005 Compensation**
     On February 23, 2005, per the recommendations of the Compensation Committee, the Board of Directors of Blackboard Inc. (the “Board”) took the following actions:
*Base Salary of Named Executive Officers*
     TheBoard approved increases to the annual base salary of the following executiveofficers, effective as of April 1, 2005:     **Name and Position**   **Annual Base Salary**Michael L. Chasen    Chief executive officer, president   $335,000Matthew L. Pittinsky    Chairman of the board of directors   $245,000Peter Q. Repetti    Chief financial officer   $245,000Matthew H. Small    Senior vice president for legal, general counsel   $195,000          
*On-Target Bonus*
     The Board approved the on-target bonus levels of the executive officers for fiscal 2005 setforth in the table below, the payment of which will be based on company performance measures andindividual or team performance measures to be established by the Compensation Committee. Theportion of the bonus payment attributable to company performance will vary depending on theofficer, and the balance is attributed to individual or team performance. If company performanceexceeds target, to the extent that an officer’s bonus is based on company performance, suchofficer’s bonus amount will be appropriately increased in accordance with the guidelinesestablished by the Compensation Committee. Conversely, if company performance is below target, theportion of each executive’s bonus based on company performance will be decreased accordingly.     **On-Target Bonus**Michael L. Chasen 70% of Base SalaryMatthew L. Pittinsky 50% of Base SalaryPeter Q. Repetti 50% of Base SalaryMatthew H. Small 50% of Base Salary
*2004 Bonus*
     The Board authorized the payment of the following bonus amounts in respect to the year ended December 31, 2004:     **2004 Bonus Amount**Michael L. Chasen $205,000Matthew L. Pittinsky $163,750Peter Q. Repetti $155,500Matthew H. Small $116,875Todd E. Gibby $95,000
#### Thomas H. LANE and Monroe Schneier, formerly trading as Lifetime Auto Accessories, Inc., Harrisburg, Pa. v. CONTINENTAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Jermyn, Pa.

Civ. A. No. 6144.

United States District Court M. D. Pennsylvania.

April 24, 1959.

*275John J. Krafsig, Jr., Harrisburg, Pa., for plaintiffs.

O’Malley, Morgan, Bour & Gallagher, Scranton, Pa., -for defendant.

WATSON, District Judge.

Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. One of the grounds upon which defendant bases his motion is that the defendant was not properly served with process in this action.

Service of process in the Federal judicial system is controlled by Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides:

> “Territorial Limits of Effective Service. All process other than a subpoena may be served anywhere within the territorial limits of the state in which the district court is held and, when a statute of the United States so provides, beyond the territorial limits of that state.

> A subpoena may be served within the territorial limits provided in Rule 45.”

In Reiter v. Illinois Nat. Cas. Co., 7 Cir., 1954, 213 F.2d 946, 950, that court stated that “The courts have held, without exception, that process served beyond the territorial limits of the state in which the District Court is held is invalid unless there is specific provision for such service by virtue of some statute.”

This case does not come within any exception to the rule provided by any statute enacted by the Congress of the United States. Therefore, the service of a summons upon a defendant in California which issued out of the District Court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania is insufficient to justify this Court taking jurisdiction. Accordingly, the service of process will be quashed and the Complaint dismissed in this action, An appropriate order will be filed with this opinion.
Table 31. Job-related work at home on primary job: All workers by marital status, presence and age 

(Numbers in thousands)

Total, 16 years and over.................. 136,602 20,673 15.1 16.2 49.3 33.7

Married, spouse present............ 77,243 14,623 18.9 16.4 48.1 34.6

Not married.............................. 59,359 6,050 10.2 15.7 52.2 31.5

Never married..................... 36,857 3,087 8.4 17.7 58.1 23.2

Other marital status............... 22,502 2,963 13.2 13.6 46.1 40.2

With own children under 18......... 50,011 8,584 17.2 17.4 47.5 34.0

 With own children under 6... 21,373 3,599 16.8 19.2 47.3 32.8

With no own children under 18...... 86,591 12,090 14.0 15.4 50.5 33.4

Total, 16 years and over.................. 64,185 9,893 15.4 17.8 51.4 29.4

Married, spouse present............ 33,750 6,509 19.3 18.2 48.8 31.4

Not married................................ 30,435 3,384 11.1 17.1 56.5 25.5

Never married..................... 16,754 1,522 9.1 19.2 66.2 12.7

Other marital status............... 13,681 1,862 13.6 15.3 48.6 35.9

With own children under 18......... 24,108 4,051 16.8 19.9 46.6 31.5

 With own children under 6... 9,331 1,614 17.3 23.4 42.6 32.6

With no own children under 18...... 40,077 5,842 14.6 16.3 54.8 27.9

Total, 16 years and over.................. 72,417 10,780 14.9 14.7 47.3 37.6

Married, spouse present............ 43,493 8,114 18.7 15.0 47.5 37.1

Not married................................ 28,924 2,666 9.2 13.9 46.8 39.1

Never married..................... 20,104 1,565 7.8 16.2 50.3 33.3

Other marital status............... 8,820 1,101 12.5 10.5 41.8 47.4

With own children under 18.......... 25,903 4,533 17.5 15.1 48.4 36.3

 With own children under 6... 12,042 1,986 16.5 15.8 51.0 33.0

With no own children under 18...... 46,514 6,247 13.4 14.5 46.5 38.6

 

of children, sex, and pay status, May 2004

Characteristic Total 

employed 3

Persons who usually worked at home 1

Total Rate

Percent distribution by class of worker 2

Wage and salary Selfemployed 4

Paid Unpaid

Total

Women

Men

1 Persons who usually work at home are defined as

those who work at home at least once per week as part

of their primary job. 2 Unpaid family workers and wage and salary workers

who did not report pay status are included in total but not

shown separately. 3 Includes persons who did not provide information on

work at home. 

4 Includes both the incorporated and unincorporated

self-employed.

NOTE: Data refer to employed persons in

nonagricultural industries. Own children include sons,

daughters, stepchildren, and adopted children. Not

included are nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and other

related and unrelated children.

SOURCE: May 2004 Work at home supplement to

the Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of

Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

86
###### **EXHIBIT 32.2**

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

In connection with thequarterly report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd on Form 10-Q for the quarterending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lloyd Hoffman Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934: and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| DATE:  | May 10, 2006 | BY:    | /s/ LLOYD HOFFMAN                                 |
|--------|-------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|   |              |   | Lloyd Hoffman                                     |
|   |              |   | Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0469

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHESTER BAUER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 24, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 20 2021

04/20/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0469
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Kress, Appellant.

[610 NYS2d 833]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered February 27, 1989, convicting him of attempted criminal mischief in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed for reasons stated by Justice Chetta in his memorandum decision and order at the Supreme Court, dated October 27, 1988, denying that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement officials. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.