alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthis Amendment No. 1 on Quarterly Report of PRIMEDIA Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert C. Metz,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to my knowledge:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ ROBERT  c. metz                     |     |     |
|-----------------------------------------|----------|----------|
| Robert C. Metz                          |     |
| *President and Chief Executive Officer* | * * | * * |

 

November 9, 2007

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

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

----
#### Rosemary Cino et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Respondents, and HRH Construction, LLC, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 201]

*797The plaintiffs commenced this action against HRH Construction, Inc. (hereinafter HRH), among others, alleging that the plaintiff Rosemary Cino sustained injuries when she tripped and fell over the raised lip of a sidewalk flagstone. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied HRH’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

A contractor may be held liable for an affirmative act of negligence which results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a public street or sidewalk *(see Brown v Welsbach Corp.,*301 NY 202, 205 [1950]; *Losito v City of New York,*38 AD3d 854 [2007]; *Kleeberg v City of New York,*305 AD2d 549 [2003]). In support of its motion for summary judgment, HRH met its burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that it did not perform any work on the portion of the sidewalk where the accident occurred, and thus did not create the allegedly defective condition which caused the injured plaintiff to fall *(see Roark v Hunting,*24 NY2d 470, 477 [1969]; *Vrabel v City of New York,*308 AD2d 443 [2003]; *Kleeberg v City of New York,*305 AD2d 549 [2003]; *Perriconi v St. John’s Preparatory High School,*290 AD2d 546 [2002]). The parties who opposed the motion failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue *798of fact *(see Duckworth v Village of Monroe,*38 AD3d 827 [2007]; *Perriconi v St. John’s Preparatory High School,*290 AD2d 546 [2002]; *Yass v Deepdale Gardens,*187 AD2d 506 [1992]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted HRH’s motion.

In light of our determination, the parties’ remaining contentions have been rendered academic. Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

____________________________________________

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: Crim. No. 02-227

Plaintiff : Order of Reallocation and

vs. : Reassignment

JOHN RIVERA :

:

Defendant :

____________________________________________ :

It is on this 27 day of July 2011,

th

O R D E R E D that the above entitled action is reallocated from

Newark to Trenton and reassigned from

Judge John W. Bissell to Judge Freda L. Wolfson.

S/Garrett E. Brown, Jr.

Garrett E. Brown, Jr., Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:02-cr-00227-FLW Document 27 Filed 07/27/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 4
Exhibit 32.3

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 ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert J. Sforzo, Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller 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:



/s/ROBERT J. SFORZO

Robert J.
Sforzo Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller

This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 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 §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.

---

QuickLinks
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 Annual Report of EGPI Firecreek, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dennis R. Alexander, President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:





(1)   The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.





By:
/s/ Dennis R. AlexanderDennis R. AlexanderCEO and Chief Financial Officer





Date: April 28, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0567 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. LESLIE ERNEST,

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 October 7th ., 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s reply brief on this appeal. Except as provided for under the rules, no additional extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 27 2024

09/27/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0567
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff

V.

CR1M. NO. 11-00029-001

ABDULLAII MUHAMMAD

Defendant

CONSENT ORDER

This matter, having come before the Court on a Motion by the defendant to correct the final

Presentence InvestigationReport, and the defendant appearing with his attorney, Kim Augustus Otis,

Esquire, appointed under the Criminal Justice Act, and Sharon B. Ashe, Assistant United States

Attorney, appearing on behalf ofthe government, and the parties consenting to the amendment of

the Presentence Investigation Report, and good cause having been shown,

IT IS on tiris /5 day of August, 2011 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as

follows:
Interfering with enforcement agent

(Atlantic City Animal Control Ordinance § 121-17)

In all other respects the Presentence Investigation Report shall remain the same, Probation

Officer Albert 3. Flores shall make this change to paragraphs 75 and 77 of the Presentence

Investigation Report and distribute it according to law.

This Order is consented to by both UnitedStates Government and counsel for the

defendant.Sharon E. Ashe, A.U.S.A.

Attorney for United States of America

Kim gustus Otis, EsquireAttorney for Defendant Abdullah Muhammad

.S.D.3.

2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

OFFICE: TRENTON DATE: June 15, 2015

JUDGE MARY L. COOPER 

COURT REPORTERS: Regina Tell and Carol Farrell

TITLE OF CASE: CV11-3962(MLC) 

HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. 

v.

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. 

 

APPEARANCES:

Joseph O’Malley, Esq., Eric Dittman, Esq., Isaac Ashkenazi, Esq., and 

Charles Lizza, Esq., for plaintiffs

Gorge Lombardi, Esq., Jovial Wong, Esq., Mayra Tarantino, Esq., Julia Johnson, Esq.,

and Brendan Barker, Esq. for defendant TEVA

Stuart Sender, Esq., Michael Imbacuan, Esq., Howard Wang, Esq., Kenneth Crowell, Esq.

and Constance Huttner, Esq., for defendant DR. REDDY'S LAB

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

Trial without jury continued before the Honorable Mary L. Cooper.

Video deposition of Maurie Markman, dated 1/7/15, played into the record by plaintiffs.

Video deposition of Valentino Stella, dated 5/10/13, played into the record by plaintiffs.

Video deposition of Navin Vaya, dated 4/19/13, played into the record by plaintiffs.

Video deposition of Limor Zahavi, dated 4/25/13, played into the record by plaintiffs.

Ordered video depositions of Navin Vaya and Limor Zahavi, are sealed. 

Order to be submitted.

Gordon Amidon SWORN for plaintiffs.

Ordered trial adjourned until 6/16/15 at 9:30am.

Lunch recess: 12:15pm – 1:00pm

TIME COMMENCED: 9:30am 

TIME ADJOURNED: 4:40pm 

TOTAL TIME: 6 hours, 25 minutes 

s/Elizabeth Heffner

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA Document 339 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 20114
#### Lewis & Greer, P.C., Appellant, v Richard T. Sinrod, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 911]

The defendant guaranteed the payment of Lynn Reed’s legal bills to the plaintiff in return for the plaintiffs representation of Reed in a number of civil actions. A dispute arose between the plaintiff and Reed over the amount of the fees and their payment. However, they subsequently entered into a stipulation whereby the plaintiff released Reed from any further liability in return for her payment of $5,000, and reserved its rights to pursue an action against the defendant for the balance based upon his guaranty.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the plaintiffs reservation of rights clause contained in the stipulation did not absolve the defendant of his obligation under the guaranty *(see*General Obligations Law § 15-104; *North Fork Bank & Trust Co. v Thomason Indus. Corp.,*194 AD2d 772 [1993]; *Citibank v Arnott Corp.,*231 AD2d 602 [1996]). However, there are triable issues of fact concerning the reasonable value of the legal services rendered by the plaintiff to Reed.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit *(see United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v Smith Co.,*46 NY2d 498 [1979]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17329]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0652]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Notice of Participation

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Notice of Participation'' has been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information 
Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-3794.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of April 6, 2009 (74 
FR 15496), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0191. 
The approval expires on May 31, 2012. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: July 14, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-17329 Filed 7-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
```
____________________________________

:

:

ASTRAZENECA AB, et al. :

:

:

Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No. 11-760 (JAP)

:

v. :

: ORDER

HANMI USA, INC., et al. :

:

:

: 

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

On December 12, 2012, this Court entered its Markman decision construing a number of 

disputed claim terms from patents-in-suit. Presently before the Court is a motion by Plaintiffs 

for reconsideration of the Court’s construction of the term “alkaline salt” in claim 1 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,714,504 (“the ʼ504 patent”), which the Court construed to be limited to the six 

specific salt species recited in the specification. For the reason in the accompanying Opinion,

IT IS on this 25th day of March 2013

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

/s/ Joel A. Pisano 

Joel A. Pisano, U.S.D.J.

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 283 Filed 03/25/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 10011
EX-10.34



 Exhibit 10.34 

 
 



 
 February 18, 2013 
 Steven J. Kemps 
 717 Edward Court 
 Southlake, TX 76092 
 Re: Modification to Letter Agreement dated November 7, 2012 

Dear Steve: 
 Pursuant to the
Letter Agreement dated November 7, 2012 between you and Dean Foods Company, the parties hereby agree that the “Resignation Date” as defined in the November 7, 2012 Letter Agreement shall be changed to April 1, 2013. This is
the only modification to the Letter Agreement dated November 7, 2012, and all other terms, conditions and covenants remain in full force and effect. 
 Agreed and Accepted: 
  

									
	STEVEN J. KEMPS	 		 	DEAN FOODS COMPANY
			
	/s/ Steven J. Kemps	 		 	/s/ Gregg A. Tanner
					
	Dated:	 	 	 		 	Dated:	 	 
		 		 		 	By: Gregg A. Tanner
		 		 		 	Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
      32.1




**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 Grace 2, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for three month period ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas A. Dyer,
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





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:
                October 8, 2008
            /s/ Douglas
                A. DyerDouglas
                A. Dyer
              President
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 112
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 113
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 114
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 115
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 116
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 117
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 118
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 119
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 120
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 121
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 122
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 123
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 124
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 125
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 126
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 127
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 128
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 129
Case 1:11-cv-04056-RMB-JS Document 2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 130
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 205 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 14317
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 205 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 14318
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 205 Filed 01/05/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 14319
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 205 Filed 01/05/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 14320
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 205 Filed 01/05/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 14321
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 ROSA MASTRANTONI, 2 Petitioner-Appellee, 3 v. No. 34,725 4 VINCENT MASTRANTONI, 5 Respondent-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 7 Sylvia Lamar, District Judge 8 Pamela Emsden 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Margaret Kegel 12 Santa Fe, NM 13 for Appellant 14 Diane M. Garrity 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 Guardian ad Litem 172 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 HANISEE, Judge. 2 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 3 proposed summary disposition. No me morandum opposing summary affirmance has 4 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 5 {2} AFFIRMED. 6 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

8 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 9 WE CONCUR: 10

11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 12

13 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 14
#### Josslyn *v.*Phillips.1

*(Circuit Court, W. D. Michigan.*

March, 1886.)

Removal of Cause—Costs—Attorney’s Fee on Remand—Act of 1875.

Where a case is remanded to the state court on the ground that the circuit court has no jurisdiction, the court may allow such attorney’s fee as would ordinarily he allowed on the final disposition of the cause.

Motion to Allow Attorney’s Pee.

*Geo. F. Edwards,*for plaintiff.

1

 Reported by Robertson Howard, Esq., of the St. Paul bar.

Brown, J.

This ease was remanded to the circuit court for the county of Berrien upon motion of the plaintiff. He now moves for the allowance of a reasonable attorney’s fee under the fifth section of the act of March 3, 1875. Prior to this act the rule had been never to allow costs where a case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction appearing upon the face of the record. It was considered that the court, having no jurisdiction of the case, could not even render a judgment for costs; but by the act of 1875 this rule is so far modified as to permit the court, in remanding a case, to “make such order as to costs as shall bo just.” The third section of the same act also requires a bond to be given for filing a transcript in the cii-ouit court, and for “paying all costs that may be awarded by the said circuit court, if said court shall hold that the suit was wrongfully or improperly removed thereto.” *Mansfield, etc., R. Co.*v. *Swan,*111 U. S. 379, 386; S. C. *4*Sup. Ct. Rep. 510. This case, however, throws no light upon *what*costs the court is authorized to impose. The general fee-hill makes no provision for an attorney’s fee upon motions, and it has not been our practice to allow one, unless it could be imposed as a condition of granting the motion; as, for instance, in the case of applications for continuance. But as “the clerk’s fee for filing the transcript is the only other item of cost likely to arise in a removed case before the motion to remand is made, and as this is always paid by the party procuring the removal from the state court, it seems to us that the statute must have intended to permit the court to impose a reasonable attorney’s fee as a compensation to the party for his services in procuring the remand. In ordinary cases, these would be the only costs to which the language of the act would attach, as the motion to remand is usually made before any further proceedings are taken in the circuit court. We think it competent for the court to allow such a fee as is ordinarily awarded on the final disposition of a cause, viz., a docket fee of $20.
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

 

ClickSoftware, Inc., a California corporation

 

ClickSoftware Europe Limited, a company incorporated under thelaws of the United Kingdom

 

ClickSoftware Belgium N.V., a company incorporated under thelaws of Belgium

 

ClickSoftware Central Europe GmbH, a company incorporated underthe laws of Germany

 

ClickSoftware Australia Pty. Limited, incorporated under thelaws of Australia. (Subsidiary of Clicksoftware, Inc.)

 

ClickSoftware India Private Limited, incorporated under thelaws of India.

 

ClickSoftware Singapore Pte. Ltd., incorporated under the lawsof Singapore.

 

ClickSoftware Technologies (Pty) Ltd., incorporated on underthe laws of South Africa.

 

ClickSoftware Brazil Soluções em Gestãode Forças de Trabalho Ltda., incorporated under the laws of Brazil.
Case 3:11-cv-03162-FLW-LHG   Document 18   Filed 05/31/11   Page 1 of 1 PageID: 126