alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.02



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 CyberGuard Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael D. Matte, 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:



(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/ Michael D. Matte   
|Michael D. Matte       
|Chief Financial Officer
|September 9, 2004      



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cyberguard Corporation and will be retained by Cyberguard Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit** **32.1**

 

**ANTARES PHARMA, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned, Jack E. Stover, the Chief Executive Officer of Antares Pharma, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this Certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the “Report”).

 

The undersigned hereby certifies 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certification as of the 13th day of November, 2007.

 

|   |   |   |   | /s/ Jack E. Stover                                    |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Jack E. Stover

President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |   |                                                  |
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2915 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2915

 To prohibit United States contributions to the International Fund for 
                                Ireland.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 2009

 Mr. Chaffetz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit United States contributions to the International Fund for 
                                Ireland.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 
              INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR IRELAND.

    (a) Prohibition.--No funds appropriated or otherwise available to 
any Federal department or agency may be obligated or expended to make 
United States contributions to the International Fund for Ireland.
    (b) Effective Date.--The prohibition contained in subsection (a) 
shall apply with respect to funds appropriated or otherwise made 
available for fiscal year 2010 and subsequent fiscal years.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shawn Smith, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 863]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered June 2, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 12V2 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There was ample evidence from which the jury could conclude that defendant injured the victim while in immediate flight from the particular burglary that he had just committed *(see, People v Slaughter,*78 NY2d 485).

Defendant’s belated mistrial motion failed to preserve his challenges to the People’s summation *(People v Jackson,*189 AD2d 563, *lv denied*81 NY2d 887), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that the challenged remarks were fair comments on the evidence and proper responses to defendant’s summation *(see, People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



Liquid Audio, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liquid Audio, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Seymour Holtzman, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. |  | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated August 14, 2003



/s/ Seymour HoltzmanSeymour HoltzmanCo-Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, 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.

 November 22, 2017

t1121

Order 

Clerk

November 22, 2017

155457

ALLAN ROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 155457

COA: 328561 

Macomb CC: 2013-001697-NO

ANDOVER HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant/

Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, 

and

JOHNNIES CONCRETE REPLACEMENT, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to 

the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the application for 

leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
     STATEMENTS  CONTAINED IN THE MARCH 31, 1997 QUARTERLY  REPORT FILED ON FORM
     10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
     STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                      MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                              4,076,730
<SECURITIES>                                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    4,163,751
<PP&E>                                                                 11,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                                         (2,265)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      4,268,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                  47,602
<BONDS>                                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                                9,567
<OTHER-SE>                                                          4,211,698
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        4,268,867
<SALES>                                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                            0
<CGS>                                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         180,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                      (131,110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                         (131,110)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                            (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            (.01)
                                                                  


</TABLE>
* 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 circumstancesset forth in 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 98-50048

Summary Calendar

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MELVIN HICKS,

also known as James Robinson,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(W-95-CA-303 & W-93-CR-85-1)

April 8, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

MelvinHicks(“Hicks”) has appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argues that the district court erred in denying him his ineffective assistance of

counsel claims. Hicks has failed to show that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s alleged ineffective

assistance. See Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 (1993); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 694 (1984). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
#### State v. Gibson

Case Below: 175 N.C. App. 223

No. 034P06

Denied (04/06/06)

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-548)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       9,477,453
<SECURITIES>                                 4,968,684
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,662,482
<ALLOWANCES>                                   203,000
<INVENTORY>                                  7,883,402
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,636,374
<PP&E>                                       6,307,710
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,747,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,251,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,206,350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,432
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,649,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,251,070
<SALES>                                     20,571,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,571,835
<CGS>                                        6,930,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,930,131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,703,445
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             136,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,646,363
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,460,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,186,363
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36


</TABLE>
DIGITAL DESCRIPTOR SYSTEMS, INC.

                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 Digital Descriptor Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KS for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Anthony Shupin, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company 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.

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


                                        Date: September 12, 2006


                                        /s/ Anthony Shupin
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Anthony Shupin
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 99.2





                        Report of Independent Accountants

To the Board of Directors
Key Bank USA, N.A.

We have examined management's assertion that, as of June 30, 1998, the internal
control system over servicing securitized receivables of AFG Receivables, Inc.
by Key Bank USA, N.A. met the criteria for effective internal control described
in "Internal Control--Integrated Framework," issued by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Management's assertion is
included in the accompanying Management Report on Internal Control over
Servicing of Securitized Receivables.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
obtaining an understanding of the internal control structure over servicing of
securitized receivables, testing and evaluating the design and operating
effectiveness of the internal control structure over servicing of securitized
receivables, and such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion.

Because of the inherent limitations in any system of internal accounting
control, errors or irregularities may occur and not be detected. Also,
projections of evaluations of the internal control structure over servicing of
securitized receivables to future periods are subject to the risk that the
internal control structure may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that, as of June 30, 1998, the internal
control system over servicing of securitized receivables of AFG Receivables,
Inc. by Key Bank USA, N.A. met the criteria for effective internal control
described in "Internal Control--Integrated Framework," issued by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission is fairly stated, in all
material respects, based upon criteria established in "Internal
Control--Integrated Framework."

                                                   ERNST & YOUNG LLP

July 30, 1998
Cleveland, Ohio
#### In the Matter of Amber EE., A Neglected Child. Broome County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Thomas FF., Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 55]

—Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County (Ray, J.), entered October 3, 1996, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, to find respondent in violation of a prior order of protection.

Respondent admitted to violating an order of protection directing that he have no contact with Amber EE. and was sentenced, as agreed, to four months in jail. Respondent’s counsel seeks to be relieved of representing respondent on appeal on the basis that no nonfrivolous issues exist. Upon our review of the record and brief submitted by respondent’s counsel, we agree. Consequently, counsel’s application to be relieved of her assignment is granted *(see, Matter of Dart v Howell,*237 AD2d 825; *see also, Anders v California,*386 US 738).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT CHRISTINE GREGORY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-562 ) DANIEL GREGORY, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed February 9, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emmett L. Battles, Judge. Anya Van Veen, Brian M. Spiro, and Jeffrey H. Skatoff of Clark Skatoff PA, Palm Beach Gardens, for Appellant. Mercedes G. Hale of Hale and Messina Law, PLLC, Wesley Chapel, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and SALARIO, 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

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40366

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SILVESTRE FLORES-DAMIAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-02-CR-712-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Silvestre Flores-Damian appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Flores-Damian complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He

argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. 

Flores-Damian thus contends that his sentence should not exceed
No. 03-40366

-2-

the maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release

prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Flores-Damian acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Stephanie A. Warren, Appellant. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 835]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 23, 1996, which, *inter alia,*ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she was not totally unemployed.

Claimant was an officer and a 50% shareholder of the employer, a realty company, until April 1989 when she resigned and sold her shares in the corporation. She returned to work for the employer in January 1990, but resigned in October 1991 because the employer was unable to pay her a salary. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that following her resignation, claimant remained a signatory on the employer’s checking account and signed approximately 25 to 30 business checks a month for the employer at its office, as well as 2 to 10 checks a month for a travel agency owned by the employer’s principal. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s ruling that claimant was not totally unemployed from November 18, 1991 to November 8, 1992. The type of check-writing activity in which claimant was engaged has been held to constitute “employment” under the Labor Law *(see, Matter of Bartfeld [Sweeney],*239 AD2d 642; *Matter of Di Giacomo [Hudacs],*183 AD2d 1095). Moreover, the Board’s finding that claimant made willful false statements to obtain *943benefits for this period is supported by substantial evidence (see, *Matter of Di Giacomo [Hudacs], supra).*

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.