alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table of Contents

EXHIBIT32.01

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b)of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode), the undersigned officer of Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc., aDelaware corporation (the ‘‘Company’’),does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge andbelief, that:

(1)    The Annual Report on Form 10-K for theyear ended April  30,  2006 (the ‘‘Form10-K’’) of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2)    The information contained in the Form10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of theCompany.

|                       |  |  |                                                          |
|-----------------------|--|--|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated:June  29,  2006 |  |  | /s/ George R.Chapdelaine                                 |
|                  |  |  | George R.ChapdelainePresident and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
|                       |

----

Table of Contents

EXHIBIT32.01

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b)of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode), the undersigned officer of Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc., aDelaware corporation (the ‘‘Company’’),does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge andbelief, that:

(1)    The Annual Report on Form 10-K for theyear ended April  30,  2006 (the ‘‘Form10-K’’) of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2)    The information contained in the Form10-K fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of theCompany.

|                       |  |  |                                    |
|-----------------------|--|--|------------------------------------|
| Dated:June  29,  2006 |  |  | /s/ Fran V.Ross                    |
|                  |  |  | Fran V. RossChief FinancialOfficer |
|                       |

----
#### Bernard N. Lillianfeld et al., Respondents, v Ruth Lichtenstein et al., Appellants.

[665 NYS2d 593]

—In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs have a prescriptive easement over property owned by the defendants, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated November 13, 1996, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs assert that they have an easement by prescription over a portion of the defendants’ adjacent property. The defendants failed to establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the plaintiffs raised issues of fact as to whether their use was hostile to that of the former owners during the prescriptive period (see, *Van Deusen v McManus,*202 AD2d 731; *2239 Hylan Blvd. Corp. v Saccheri,*188 AD2d 524, 525; *Boumis v Caetano,*140 AD2d 401, 402).

The defendants’ remaining arguments lack merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
      a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fiscal fourth quarter in the case of an annul report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and




---



##### 



a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: November 5, 2009
    /s/ Christopher H. AtayanChristopher H. Atayan,Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
Order entered April 1 9 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00244
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF I.D. & A.D., MINOR CHILDREN On Appeal from t he 354th Judicial District Court

Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 88200

O RDER
T he notice of appeal in this case , filed in this Court on April 14, 2021 , contains the names of the minor children. We ORDER appellant to file an
amended notice of appeal that comp l ies with rule 9. 8 of the T e xas Rules of Appellate Procedure on or before April 23 , 2021

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.8 (all
papers submitted to the court , except a docketing statement , must identify a minor by an ali as, meaning using one o r more of the person ’ s initials or a fictitious name to refer to the person )

. /s/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-51061

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDWARD ABAYOMI OSHOBU, also known

as Emmanuel Abayomi Oshobu, also 

known as Emmanuel Alex Oshobo, also 

known as Emmanuel Abay Oshobu, also 

known as Emmanuel A. Shobu, also 

known as Edward Oshobu, also known 

as Emanuel Oshobo, also known as 

Emmanuel Oshobu, also known as 

Yomi Oshobu, also known as Ed Oshobu, 

also known as Edward A. Oshobo, also known 

as A.O. Agayrnde, also known as Joseph Yorinde,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-96-CR-143-1

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Abayomi Oshobu appeals his jury conviction for making a

false claim of citizenship, contending that an oral statement regarding

his citizenship should have been suppressed at trial. No motion to

suppress was filed and any argument with respect thereto is waived. 
No. 97-51061

-2-

See United States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d 127, 130 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 325 (1997); FED. R. CRIM. P.

12(b)(3).

The appeal is DISMISSED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Onan Alexis Reyes CASTILLO, a.k.a. Alexis Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50117.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Bobby Chen, Special Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Nancy Spiegel, United States Attorney Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

*700Onan Alexis Reyes Castillo, Pecos, TX, pro se.

Kathryn Ann Young, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Onan Alexis Reyes Castillo appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 37-month sentence for being an illegal alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Reyes Castillo’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant with the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Peter P. Brubaker, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2004 of Susquehanna Media Co.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
a. All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 11, 2004     /s/ Peter P. Brubaker   Peter P. Brubaker President and CEO
Exhibit 32.02


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 I, Vincent De Lorenzo, certify that:
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Digital Creative Development Corporation for the quarter ending March 31, 2011 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:
 
 (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended; and
 
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: August 17, 2011
  /s/ Vincent De Lorenzo
 Vincent De Lorenzo
 Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

                                  Certification

I, Ernst Luebke, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Mymetics Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Dated: March 30, 2007                   /s/ Ernst Luebke
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Ernst Luebke
                                        Chief Financial Officer
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-12-00093-CV

____________________

JAMES TAYLOR, INDIVIDUALLY AS WRONGFUL DEATH 

BENEFICIARY OF DORIS HAYNIE AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE 

OF DORIS HAYNIE, Appellant

V.

ACTAVIS, INC., ACTAVIS TOTOWA, LLC, ACTAVIS ELIZABETH, 

LLC, MYLAN, INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN 

BERTEK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND UDL LABORATORIES, INC., 

Appellees

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 260th District Court 

Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D-090397HC

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The appellant, James Taylor, Individually as Wrongful Death Beneficiary of Doris 

Haynie and on Behalf of The Estate of Doris Haynie, and the appellees, Actavis, Inc., 

Actavis Totowa, LLC, Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc., Mylan Bertek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and UDL Laboratories, Inc., filed a joint motion 
2

to dismiss this appeal. The motion is voluntarily made by the parties prior to any decision 

of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

 ________________________________

 DAVID GAULTNEY

 Justice

 

Opinion Delivered March 28, 2013

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
#### Jerry L. COBB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeanne WOODFORD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-17132.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 18, 2011.

Jerry L. Cobb, Blythe, CA, pro se.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Jerry L. Cobb appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Smith v. Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp.,*358 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2004). We vacate and remand.

The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion because it concluded that Cobb was challenging prison disciplinary proceedings that resulted in loss of good-time credits and he could only bring a civil action for damages after the disciplinary findings were invalidated. As Cobb argued in his motion for reconsideration, however, he was not challenging any loss of good-time credits. Cobb demonstrates in his complaint and the attachments thereto that the disciplinary findings were invalidated through the inmate appeals process prior to his filing this action and that his good-time credits were restored. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings. *See Wilkinson v. Dotson,*544 U.S. 74, 81, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005) (“§ 1983 remains available for procedural challenges where success in the action would not necessarily spell immediate or speedier release for the prisoner”) (emphasis omitted).

We express no opinion as to the merits of his claims.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer

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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                                          
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ CYRIL TALBOT III                     
|                      |  |  |  | Cyril Talbot III, Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certifications are being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### Patricia O. Loftman, Appellant, v Columbia University, Respondent.

[860 NYS2d 525]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 2, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the cause of action for disparate pay based on race, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden of establishing prima facie that she, an African-American, received a lower salary than that of similarly situated midwives under circumstances giving rise to an inference of race discrimination *(see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind,*3 NY3d 295, 305 [2004]). In any event, defendant introduced evidence of legitimate reasons for its salary determinations, and plaintiff failed to prove that those reasons were false and that discrimination was the real reason *(see id.).*The evidence established that defendant’s hiring of new midwives at higher rates of pay while not increasing plaintiffs salary was prompted by short-staffing, a wage freeze for on-staff midwives, and the salary demands of prospective new hires; that, in order to increase salaries notwithstanding the freeze, defendant revised the job description to include night and weekend work and work at a satellite clinic; and that when the new job description was offered to the on-staff midwives, plaintiff accepted the offer and received a substantial increase in salary.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.
[No. 67429-3-I.

Division One.

October 29, 2012.]

#### Michael Durland et al., *Appellants,*v. San Juan County et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Skagit County, No. 10-2-01536-4, David A. Svaren, J. Pro Tern., entered June 20, 2011. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part,*and *remanded with instructions*by unpublished opinion per

Spearman, A.C.J.,

concurred in by Schindler and Dwyer, JJ. Now published at 174 Wn. App. 1.