alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.18



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. section 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTIONS 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of IntegraMed America, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, John Hlywak, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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 presents, in all
             materials respects, the financial condition and results of
             operations of the Company.





                             /s/John Hlywak, Jr.
                                ---------------------------------
                                John Hlywak, Jr.
                                Chief Financial Officer
                                August 14, 2002
ex10_2.htm


    On Wed,
Mar 11, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Michael Lam <michaell@liquidiceenergydrink.com>
wrote:

    Hi Todd,
this is to confirm that on page 6 number 11 of the LMP-Health and Wellness
distribution contract should be corrected to: December 31, 2009.
 I will fax a new pay to you in the morning for your
initials.

    


    


    Thank
You.

    


    


    Michael
H. Lam

    President

    Liquid
Management Partners,.LLC

    New
York

    Tel:
  516 773 0065

    Fax:
 516 773 0067

    Mob:
 917 599 7928

    www.liquidiceny.com

    www.liquidiceenergydrink.com

    


    


    The
information contained in this communication may be confidential and
is

    intended
only for the use of the recipient named above. If you are not that

    intended
recipient, you hereby are placed on notice that any dissemination,

    distribution
or copying of this communication, or its contents, is strictly

    prohibited.
If you have received this communication in error, please forward

    this
communication to the sender and delete the original message, and
any

    copy of
it, from your computer system. Thank you.

    


    


    -----Original
Message-----

    From: U S
Loan Modification Agency [mailto:theuslma@gmail.com]

    Sent:
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:17 AM

    To:
Michael Lam

    Cc: Cane,
Kyleen; Milton Ault III; satyendesh@gmail.com

    Subject:
Error in Exclusive California Distribution Contract for Liquid Ice

    Energy
Drink

    


    Hello
Michael:

    


    Please
confirm by reply email that the term date on the exclusive Liquid
Ice

    Energy
Drink distribution contract between Liquid Management Partners, LLC

    and
Health and Wellness Partners, Inc. on page 6 was a typo and should
have

    been
December 31, 2009.

    


    --

    Thanks,

    


    Gary

    


    Gary
Gottlieb

    President,
Ault Glazer & Co. Inc

    CFO,
Zealous, Inc.

    President,
Zealous Real Estate Consulting

    


    (949)
885-7314 main

    (949)
885-7322 direct

    (949)
885-7385 fax

    theuslma@gmail.com
J-S13038-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

JODY ANDREW BOYER, 

 Appellant No. 1531 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 11, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0000069-2014 

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MUNDY, J., and STABILE, J. 

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 3, 2015 

 I do not believe the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to 

support the conviction for resisting arrest. Accordingly, I respectfully 

dissent.
#### Richard M. HINDS, Claimant-Appellee, v. Gordon H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 2007-7054.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2007.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

The Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves without opposition to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and remand this appeal.

Richard M. Hinds appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims from a September 29, 2003 decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals that, inter alia, determined Hinds had received adequate notification of the evidence or information necessary to substantiate his claim as required by 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) through receipt of various pre and post-decisional communications.

Having determined that the Board’s reliance on post-decisional communications was improper under *Mayfield v. Nicholson,*444 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir.2006) and noting that it was uncertain whether the Board would have concluded that pre-decisional communications alone would have satisfied the Secretary’s section 5103(a) notice requirements, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that it was not in a position to determine whether the notice error was prejudicial. The court vacated and remanded for the Board to decide the issue in the first instance. The Secretary appealed, seeking review by this court.

On October 4, 2007, the court issued its decision in *Mlechick v. Mansfield,*503 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.2007). *Mlechick*held that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims cannot refuse to consider the rule of prejudicial error if the Board relied on both pre and post-decisional communications. *Id.*at 1345-46. Rather, in cases such as this, where the Secretary has attempted to show the notice error was nonprejudicial, the court should review the pre-decisional communications “to determine if any differences between the notice given and the notice required by [section 5103(a) ] ‘affected the fundamental fairness of the adjudication’ being mindful that the burden is on [the Secretary] to make such a showing.” *Id.*(citation omitted).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Acting Secretary’s motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 12/23/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: ALLAN R. CRUMP and SHIRLEY A. CRUMP,

Debtors,

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

ALLAN R. CRUMP, SHIRLEY A.

CRUMP,

Appellants,

v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, MICHAEL PIPPIN, JUDY PIPPIN,

Appellees.

No. 96-1157

(D.C. No. 95-N-582)

(D. Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, LOGAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the
1

 The judgment appealed from also involved the district court’s affirmance of the

bankruptcy court’s order denying in part debtors’ objection to the Internal Revenue

Service’s proof of claim. Debtors do not raise the proof of claim issue in their briefs on

appeal; thus they have waived any allegation of error as to that decision.

- 2 -

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Debtors Allan R. Crump and Shirley A. Crump appeal the decision of the district

court affirming the United States Bankruptcy Court’s denial of their application for a

show cause order against appellees Michael Pippin and Judy Pippin.1 Debtors requested,

inter alia, that the bankruptcy court order appellees to show cause why they should not be

held in contempt for violating the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362 by

attempting to gain possession of property that the Internal Revenue Service seized from

debtors and sold to appellees. Debtors asked the court to order appellees to pay exemplary damages, to cease attempts to obtain possession of the property, and other relief. 

The bankruptcy court found that because debtors sought declaratory, injunctive and

monetary relief, they were required under Bankruptcy Rule 7001 to bring their claim as an

adversary proceeding.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record and are satisfied that the district court

accurately summarized the facts and correctly applied the law. We cannot add significantly to the analysis of the district court in its Order and Memorandum of Decision of

March 28, 1996, and therefore AFFIRM for substantially the reasons stated therein.
- 3 -
- 4 -

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

James K. Logan

Circuit Judge
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF STARR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on June 3, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or

reverse your judgment between

Marco Antonio Hernandez, Appellant

V.

Lisa Hernandez, Appellee

No. 04

- 15

- 00246

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. CC

- 10

- 03

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.

We order that appellee Lisa Hernandez recover her costs of this appeal, if

any, from appellant Marco Antonio Hernandez.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on August 13, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 15

- 00246

- CV

Marco Antonio Hernandez

v.

Lisa Hernandez

(NO. CC

- 10

- 03 IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF STARR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

FILING $195.00 NOT PAID N/A

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: $195.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid**  **as per**  **the Judgment issued**  **by this**  **Court.**

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this August 13, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 

OF MARYLAND 

Petitioner 

V. 

PETER JEROME EIDE 

Respondent 

• IN THE 

• COURT OF APPEALS 

• OF MARYLAND 

• Misc. Docket AG 

• No, 0061 

• September Term, 2015 

********************************************* 

ORDER 

The parties herein have jointly petitioned this Court to reprimand Respondent pursuant 

to Maryland Rule 16-772. Upon review of said Joint Petition and for the reasons set forth 

therein, it is this 18th day of Hay 2016, 

ORDERED, that Respondent, Peter Jerome Eide, be and he is hereby reprimanded for 

misconduct in violation of Rule 5.5 (a) of the Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional 

Conduct. 

/s/ Clayton Greene TiSenior Judge
EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the use of our report dated April 23, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
NQA, Inc. for the years ended January 31, 2010 and 2009, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of National Technical Systems, Inc. for the year ended
January 31, 2010.

/s/ PKF, P.C.


Boston,
Massachusetts
April 28, 2010

---





Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To
the Board of Directors
NQA, Inc.

We
have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of NQA, Inc. (the "Company") as of January 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income
and retained earnings, and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.

We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Company's internal control over financial
reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose
of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In
our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of NQA, Inc. as of
January 31, 2010 and 2009, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.

/s/ PKF, P.C.April 23, 2010


---



QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

A pril 25 , 2016

s0414p 

# Order

Clerk April 25 , 2016

153047

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153047

COA: 328754

Barry CC: 14

- 000469

- FH

NICHOLAS EMIL BUEKER

- DECAMP,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 29, 2015 and

December 3, 2015 orders of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED,

because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this

Court.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: June 2, 2016 521160 

________________________________

In the Matter of TERRANCE

CALDWELL,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting

Commissioner of Corrections

 and Community Supervision,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: April 25, 2016

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Lynch, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Cooper Erving & Savage LLP, Albany (Brian W. Matula of

counsel), for appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Brian D.

Ginsberg of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Clark, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Elliott III,

J.), entered March 9, 2015 in Albany County, which dismissed

petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding

petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a combined tier III disciplinary hearing,

petitioner was found guilty of two counts of assaulting staff,

two counts of interfering with an employee, refusing a direct

order and possessing unauthorized medication. Upon

administrative appeal, the two counts of interfering with an
-2- 521160 

employee were dismissed, but the remainder of the determination

was upheld. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78

proceeding to challenge the determination. After respondent

joined issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting

this appeal.

Petitioner contends that he was denied the right to have

certain witnesses testify at his disciplinary hearing and that he

received inadequate employee assistance. However, the hearing

transcript is replete with inaudible gaps that preclude our

meaningful review of these issues. Accordingly, the

determination must be annulled and the matter remitted for a new

hearing (see Matter of Hamlett v Kelley, 133 AD3d 992, 992

[2015]; Matter of Nance v Annucci, 132 AD3d 1198, 1198 [2015]). 

We note that, under the circumstances, expungement is not the

appropriate remedy (see Matter of Hamlett v Kelley, 133 AD3d at

992-993; Matter of Barnes v Fischer, 108 AD3d 990, 990-991

[2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 855 [2013]; Matter of Hayes v Fischer,

95 AD3d 1587, 1588 [2012]).

Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without

costs, determination annulled and matter remitted to respondent

for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court's

decision.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
EXHBIT 24(b)(9)(b)
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 8
                                       TO
                        ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT


The  Administrative  Services  Agreement  between  The AAL Mutual  Funds and AAL
Advisors Inc. (n/k/a AAL Capital Management Corporation), effective July 1 1990,
as amended, is hereby further amended, effective December 29, 1997, as follows:

     1.   Schedule  B  attached  to the  Administrative  Services  Agreement  is
          amended to add The AAL  Balanced  Fund.  Schedule B,  effective  as of
          December 29, 1997, is attached hereto.

     2.   Pursuant to section 2.1 of the Administrative Services Agreement,  the
          annual rate of payment for The AAL Balanced Fund will be at the annual
          rate of $35,000  plus the actual  costs of the pricing  services  from
          unaffiliated parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be signed by
the respective officers effective as of December 29, 1997.

ATTEST:                                      THE AAL MUTUAL FUNDS



By _____________________________             By _____________________________
   Robert G. Same, Secretary                    Ronald G. Anderson, President


ATTEST:                                      AAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
                                             CORPORATION



By _____________________________             By ____________________________
   Robert G. Same, Secretary                    Ronald G. Anderson, President

<PAGE>


SCHEDULE B
                          (Effective December 29, 1997)

                           The AAL Capital Growth Fund
                                The AAL Bond Fund
                           The AAL Municipal Bond Fund
                            The AAL Money Market Fund
          The AAL U.S. Government Zero Coupon Target Fund, Series 2001
          The AAL U.S. Government Zero Coupon Target Fund, Series 2006
      The AAL Mid Cap Stock Fund (f/k/a The AAL Smaller Company Stock Fund)
            The AAL Equity Income Fund (f/k/a The AAL Utilities Fund)
                           The AAL International Fund
                          The AAL Small Cap Stock Fund
                          The AAL High Yield Bond Fund
                              The AAL Balanced Fund
Submitted May 2,

reversed June 11, 2008

#### In the Matter of D. T., Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*D. T., *Appellant.*

Multnomah County Circuit Court

070463377; A135539

186 P3d 323

Liza J. Langford filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Justice J. Rillera, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*454PER CURIAM

Appellant in this mental commitment case appeals a judgment committing her to the Mental Health Division for treatment for a period of time not to exceed 180 days. ORS 426.130. The trial court found that appellant suffers from a mental disorder and is unable to provide for her basic needs. The state concedes that the record lacks clear and convincing evidence that defendant’s mental disorder causes her to be unable to provide for her basic needs. On *de novo*review, we find the state’s concession to be well founded and accept it.

Reversed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Under
Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements 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 results of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 7, 2007
    
    /s/ GREGORY B. KENNY

Gregory B. KennyChief Executive OfficerDate: November 7, 2007
    
    /s/ BRIAN J. ROBINSONBrian J. RobinsonChief Financial Officer