alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer and Secretarypursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(c)and 15d-14(a)
I, Kit Tsui, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of SigmaDesigns, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement 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 tothe period covered by this report;

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

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

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

b)	Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

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

d)	Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financialreporting; 

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

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

 

Date: April 14, 2005

/s/ Kit Tsui
* 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. 98-50425 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE MANCINAS-ROCHA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 97-CR-1907-ALL-H

- - - - - - - - - -

October 22, 1998

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

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel for Jose Mancinas-Rocha (Mancinas) has filed a brief

as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our

independent review of the brief and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly counsel is excused from further

responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
(No. 6567

#### De Kalb Public Hospital, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*293
      *Opinion filed April 27, 1973.*

De Kalb Public Hospital, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18


                         Tekelec 1997 Officer Bonus Plan


The Company's executive compensation program for the year ending December 31,
1997 includes the 1997 Officer Bonus Plan as approved by the Company's Board of
Directors. Under the terms of the 1997 Officer Bonus Plan, each executive
officer is eligible to receive a cash bonus equal to a percentage of his annual
base salary if the Company achieves certain pre-established financial
performance goals for the year ending December 31, 1997. Bonuses under such Plan
are only paid if the Company's revenues and operating income meet or exceed both
a threshold 100% of the revenue goal and operating income goal as set forth in
the Company's business plan and as approved by the Board of Directors.

The following schedules list the various bonus levels achievable for the various
executive officers at certain levels of corporate and divisional performance for
1997. Bonuses are calculated and paid according to these following schedules
which are used by applying the applicable bonus percentage to the annual base
salary for the eligible officer.

Bonus payments, if any, will be made in one lump sum payable after the revenue
and operating income results for fiscal 1997 have been finalized and any review
and audit by the Company's outside accountants has been completed.

Unless additional officers are explicitly included in the 1997 Officer Bonus
Plan pursuant to a subsequent, duly adopted Board resolution, only the following
officers of the Company are eligible to participate in the 1997 Officer Bonus
Plan: Chief Executive Officer; President; Vice President, Finance, Chief
Financial Officer; Division Executives; Vice President, Operations; Vice
President, Human Resources; and the President of Tekelec, Ltd.

If an officer is subject to divisional financial performance goals, the officer
must meet the applicable divisional goals as well as the applicable Company
goals in order to be eligible to receive a bonus under the Plan.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------




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


     In connection with the quarterly report of Spire Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A (the "Report") for the period ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Gregory G. Towle, Financial Controller and Treasurer (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.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 results of operations
          of the Company.




Dated:   January 23, 2004       By: /s/ Gregory G. Towle
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Gregory G. Towle
                                    Financial Controller and Treasurer
                                   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.
### **CHAPTER 52—EDUCATION FOR ECONOMIC SECURITY**

Sec.
3901.
Statement of purpose.
3902.
Definitions.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION

3911.
Congressional declaration of policy.
3912.
Functional objectives; uses of funds.
3913.
Teacher institutes.
3914.
Materials development and methods research for mathematics, science, and engineering.
3915.
Graduate fellowships.
3916.
Other functional activities.
3917.
Repealed.
3918.
Approval of proposals.
3919.
Special consideration of underrepresented and underserved population.
3920.
Availability of funds.
3921.
Prohibition against the Federal control of education.
3922.
Participation of teachers from private schools.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—EDUCATION FOR ECONOMIC SECURITY

3961 to 3973. Repealed.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—PARTNERSHIPS IN EDUCATION FOR MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND ENGINEERING

#### Part A—Higher Education Partnerships

3981.
Statement of purpose.
3982.
Definitions.
3983.
Program authorized.
3984.
Authorized activities.
3985.
Application.
3986.
Submission of applications.
3987.
Approval of applications.
3988.
Payments; Federal share; limitation.

#### Part B—Elementary and Secondary Education Partnerships

3991.
Purpose.
3992.
Programs authorized.
3993.
Amendment to State application.
3994.
Eligible programs.
3995.
Local applications.
3996.
Submission of applications.
3997.
Approval of applications.
3998.
Computation of grant amounts.

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—PRESIDENTIAL AWARDS FOR TEACHING EXCELLENCE IN MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE

4001 to 4003. Repealed.

#### SUBCHAPTER V—ASBESTOS SCHOOL HAZARD ABATEMENT

4011.
Findings and purpose.
4012.
Asbestos hazard abatement program.
4013.
State records and priority lists.
4014.
Financial assistance.
4015.
Administrative provisions.
4016.
Annual report.
4017.
Recovery of costs.
4018.
Employee protection.
4019.
Affect on rights under other laws.
4020.
Definitions.
4021.
Authorization.
4022.
Asbestos Trust Fund.

#### SUBCHAPTER VI—EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION PROGRAM

4031 to 4037. Repealed.

#### SUBCHAPTER VII—MAGNET SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE

4051 to 4062. Repealed.

#### SUBCHAPTER VIII—EQUAL ACCESS

4071.
Denial of equal access prohibited.
4072.
Definitions.
4073.
Severability.
4074.
Construction.

#### SUBCHAPTER IX—STAR SCHOOLS PROGRAM

4081 to 4086. Repealed.
### Part H—Program Integrity

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Part H of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. 89–329, which comprises this part, was formerly classified to part G of this subchapter. See Codification note preceding section 1087a of this title.

Pub. L. 105–244, title IV, §491(1), Oct. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1758, added heading and struck out former heading "Program Integrity Triad".

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part H, consisting of part I of title IV of Pub. L. 89–329, was redesignated part I of this subchapter.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

DAY ELEV

 359.97

 360.00

 360.00

 360.00

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 359.97

 360.11

 360.11

 360.08

 360.08

 360.08

 360.08

 360.11

 360.00

 360.00

 360.00

 360.03

 535

 537

 537

 537

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 535

 545

 545

 543

 543

 543

 543

 545

 537

 537

 537

 539

STORAGE

+0

+2

+0

+0

-2

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+10

+0

-2

+0

+0

+0

+2

-8

+0

+0

+2

CHANGE

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 227

 228

 241

 229

 227

 229

 228

 230

 226

 226

 227

 226

 222

 226

 227

 227

 225

 228

 301

 378

 376

 378

 381

 382

 378

 326

 224

 227

 225

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT

SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT

TRI DAMS PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2008 GOODWIN RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: May 8, 2008

RES.

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +4 0 7,675 0

ACRE-FEET +4 0 15,223 0

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

JOINT MAIN CANAL 0

SOUTH MAIN CANAL 0

 15,223

 535

OUTLET 0

TOTAL 

TULLOCH

RELEASE

 197

 198

 200

 198

 198

 198

 201

 200

 221

 258

 256

 257

 291

 250

 251

 251

 248

 254

 304

 336

 296

 301

 299

 298

 300

 262

 208

 212

 214

 7,157

 14,196

JOINT MAIN OPERATED BY SSJID AND OID.

JOINT

MAIN

SOUTH

MAIN

SPILL 15,223

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

RIVER CANALS

Table 14
ParPaguirre 

Douglas Cherry 

EARNEST PHILLIPS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

EARNEST PHILLIPS AiK/A ERNEST 

PHILLIPS, 

No, 67087 

No. 67206 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS 

These are pro se appeals from court orders resolving various 

pretrial motions and a court order denying a petition to resubmit 

appellant's pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial 

District Court, Clark County, Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge. 

No statute or court rule permits an appeal from an order 

denying such motions or resolving such a petition. See Castillo v. State, 

106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990); Gary v. Sheriff, 96 Nev. 78, 

605 P.2d 212 (1980) (no appeal lies from an order denying a pretrial 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus). Accordingly, we conclude that we 

lack jurisdiction to consider these appeals, and we 

ORDER these appeals DISMISSED. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I 94/A 4se 
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

Earnest Phillips 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 4W, 

014.1123$ rib, MAISMI loratel-Waln.W.30•404..eall.01 a.raw-aa.
#### C. Dudley Allen, Respondent, v. Abiel L. Smith, Appellant.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the final award of costs, upon questions of fact as well as of law; and the following findings of fact are reversed as either being contrary to the weight of the evidence in the case, or without any evidence to support them: Hos. 4,13, 13, 14,15, 16, so much of 17 as follows the words Dean Pond, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 81, 33 and 35 respectively. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
477 P.2d 833

#### The STATE of New Mexico, ex rel. VALENCIA COUNTY CLERK, Lucy Keys Brubaker, Clerk, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Paul F. LARRAZOLO, District Judge, Second Judicial District, Valencia County, New Mexico, Respondent.

No. 9169.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Dec. 9, 1970.

Original Prohibition Proceeding

Ordered that the alternative writ of prohibition issued herein on November 23, 1970, be and the same is hereby made permanent, and all material impounded pursuant to the orders of the District Court in and for the County of Valencia, in cause No. 16056, shall remain impounded subject to the further orders of the District Court in the election contest proceedings which have been initiated in Valencia County District Court Cause No. 16089.
Exhibit 23.4
 Independent Valuation Firms Consent
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5535 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5535

 To require Senate confirmation of an individual appointed to serve as 
    the Director of the American Institute in Taiwan, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 23, 2019

Mr. Chabot (for himself and Mr. Sherman) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require Senate confirmation of an individual appointed to serve as 
    the Director of the American Institute in Taiwan, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Taiwan Envoy Act''.

SEC. 2. SENATE CONFIRMATION REQUIRED OF AN INDIVIDUAL APPOINTED TO 
              SERVE AS DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE IN TAIWAN.

    (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that an 
extended period without a Director of the American Institute in Taiwan 
would be detrimental to United States interests.
    (b) Senate Confirmation.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        law, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and 
        consent of the Senate, an individual to serve as the Director 
        of the American Institute in Taiwan.
            (2) Effective date.--This section shall take effect 
        beginning with the first appointment by the President of an 
        individual to serve as the Director of the American Institute 
        in Taiwan that is made after the date of the enactment of this 
        section.
    (c) Location in Taipei.--An individual who serves as the Director 
of the American Institute in Taiwan shall serve at the Institute in 
Taipei, Taiwan.
    (d) Rank and Status.--The Director of the American Institute in 
Taiwan shall have the rank and status of Ambassador at Large.
    (e) Successor Position.--Any reference to the position of Director 
of the American Institute in Taiwan in this section includes any 
similar successor position.
                                 <all>
```
#### Pauly Loble, Respondent, v. Ninth Street Garage, Appellant.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and demurrer overruled, with costs, with leave to plaintiff to withdraw demurrer on payment of costs, on the authority of *911
      *Casey*v. *Auburn Telephone Co.*(155 App. Div. 66). Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 28

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear by T.D. ATF-477, 67 FR 18087 through 18090, Apr. 15, 2002.

#### § 28.95 Change of packages for exportation.

Whenever the exporter desires to transfer distilled spirits from packages filled on the bonded premises of a distilled spirits plant to such other suitable packages as may be desired for exportation, such change of packages shall be made under the procedures of part 19 of this chapter, prior to the preparation of TTB Form 5100.11 covering the removal of the distilled spirits.

(Sec. 201, Pub. L. 85-859, 72 Stat. 1358, as amended, 1360, as amended, 1374, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5205, 5206, 5301))

[T.D. ATF-62, 44 FR 71722, Dec. 11, 1979, as amended by T.D. TTB-8, 69 FR 3832, Jan. 27, 2004; T.D. TTB-146, 82 FR 1136, Jan. 4, 2017]
### §1965. Venue and process

(a) Any civil action or proceeding under this chapter against any person may be instituted in the district court of the United States for any district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.

(b) In any action under section 1964 of this chapter in any district court of the United States in which it is shown that the ends of justice require that other parties residing in any other district be brought before the court, the court may cause such parties to be summoned, and process for that purpose may be served in any judicial district of the United States by the marshal thereof.

(c) In any civil or criminal action or proceeding instituted by the United States under this chapter in the district court of the United States for any judicial district, subpenas issued by such court to compel the attendance of witnesses may be served in any other judicial district, except that in any civil action or proceeding no such subpena shall be issued for service upon any individual who resides in another district at a place more than one hundred miles from the place at which such court is held without approval given by a judge of such court upon a showing of good cause.

(d) All other process in any action or proceeding under this chapter may be served on any person in any judicial district in which such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.

(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title IX, §901(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 944.)
(No. 78-CC-1057

#### Craig Springfield, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed July 25,1978.*

Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl._, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which *782inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.