alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2



Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63

of Title 18 of the United States Code



I, Michael Smith, the chief financial officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cobra Electronics
Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.

/s/    Michael
SmithMichael SmithAugust 14, 2003
§ 223.4 Policy. It is DoD policy that: ( a ) Unauthorized dissemination of unclassified information pertaining to security measures, including security plans, procedures, and equipment, for the physical protection of DoD SNM, SNM equipment, SNM facilities, or nuclear weapons in DoD custody is prohibited.
( b ) Unclassified information shall be protected as DoD UCNI based on a determination that the unauthorized dissemination of such information could reasonably be expected to have a significant adverse effect on the health and safety of the public or the common defense and security by significantly increasing the likelihood of the illegal production of nuclear weapons or the theft, diversion, or sabotage of DoD SNM, SNM equipment, SNM facilities, or nuclear weapons in DoD custody.
( c ) Unclassified information regarding physical protection of DoD SNM and nuclear weapons in DoD custody shall be made publicly available to the fullest extent possible by applying the minimum restrictions, consistent with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 128, necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or the common defense and security.
( d ) This part and title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1017 shall be used as guidance for handling DOE UCNI that is under DoD control.
( e ) This part does not prevent a determination that information previously determined to be DoD UCNI is classified information in accordance with Volume 1 of DoD Manual 5200.01[3] and other applicable standards of classification.
Footnotes -
223.4
[3] Available on the Internet at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001_vol1.pdf .*
[No. 9440.

Department One.

July 20, 1911.]

#### Della M. Cooper, *Respondent,*v. W. W. H. Cooper, *Appellant.*
      *1*

Divorce—Alimony—Attorney’s Pees—Reasonableness. An allowance of $25 per month, alimony and $150 attorney’s fees is not unreasonable, where it appears that defendant was thirty-six years of age, in good health, engaged in the insurance business, and capable of earning considerable money.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Lindsay, J., entered December 11, 1909, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury,, in an action for divorce.

Affirmed.

*William R. Bell,*for appellant.

*Jay C. Allen,*for respondent.

Reported in 116 Pac. 673.

*220Per Curiam.

In this case a decree was entered at the suit' of' the respondent, the plaintiff below, dissolving the marriage relation existing between the plaintiff and defendant. The decree further provides that, until the plaintiff remarries or until 'the further order of the court, the defendant shall pay her the sum of $25 per month, commencing December 1, 1909, and that he shall pay her the sum of $150 as attorney’s fees. The defendant has appealed from that part of the decree awarding alimony and attorney’s fees to the plaintiff.

The record shows, and the court found, that the appellant is thirty-six years of age, in good health, engaged in the insurance business,' arid capable of earning considerable money. A discussion' of the evidence would serve no useful purpose. It suffices to say that the allowance of the alimony and attorney’s fees is not unreasonable.

The decree is affirmed, and the clerk of the court is directed to enter a judgment against the appellant and his sureties on the supersedeas bond, for the amount of the alimony from December 1, 1909, at $25 per month, with legal interest on each of the payments, and for an attorney’s fee of $150 and costs of the appeal. The judgment shall provide for its remission to the superior court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
#### § 886.26 When and how can my grant be terminated for convenience?

Either you or we may terminate or reduce a grant if both parties agree that continuing the program would not produce benefits worth the additional costs. We will handle a termination for convenience as an amendment to the grant to be approved by the OSM official authorized to approve your grant.
Opinion issued April 8, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00732-CV

———————————

IN RE CARLOS DAVID VELASCO, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Carlos David Velasco, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, 

challenging the trial court’s issuance of a protective order and asking that we “find 

the protective order void” and “order that the records [of the child’s testimony at 
2

the protective order hearing] be unsealed [and] that the trial court vacate its prior 

order and notify the authorities.”1

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle.

 

1

The underlying case is Ofelia Leija v. Carlos David Velasco, cause number 2012-

71321, pending in the 280th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Hon. 

Lynn Bradshaw-Hull presiding.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.16

                AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT

     This Amendment No. 2 to Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of December
9, 2002, shall serve to amend the Securities Purchase Agreement (the
"Agreement"), dated as of May 15, 2002, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to
Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of August 21, 2002, by and among Torbay
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 4
Mulford Place, Suite 2G, Hempstead, New York 11550, and each of the Buyers set
forth in the Agreement.

1.     The undersigned parties hereby agree to amend Section 4(l) of the
Agreement to provide that the Buyers will fund the final $195,000 of the
subsequent investment on the date hereof, instead of within five (5) business
days following the Effective Date of the Registration Statement (as defined in
the Agreement).

2.     All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

                            [Signature Page Follows]

<PAGE>

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

TORBAY HOLDINGS, INC.


By:_____________________________________
     William Thomas Large
     President and Chief Executive Officer

AJW PARTNERS, LLC
By: SMS Group, LLC


By:_____________________________________
     Corey S. Ribotsky
     Manager

AJW OFFSHORE, LTD.
By:  First Street Manager II, LLC


By: ____________________________________
     Corey S. Ribotsky
Manager

AJW QUALIFIED PARTNERS, LLC
By:  AJW Manager, LLC


By: _____________________________________
     Corey S. Ribotsky
     Manager



<PAGE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Darius Xavier Wood v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00181-CR

Trial court case number: 1303774

Trial court: 230th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s counsel in this case has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief stating there 

are no arguable grounds for appeal, based on Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Appellant has a right to respond to counsel’s motion. Pursuant to Kelly v. State, No. PD0702-13, 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 2014), we direct the Clerk of this Court 

to send, at no cost to appellant, a complete copy of the appellate record so that appellant may 

respond to the Anders brief. 

Appellant has 30 days from the date of this order to file a pro se response, if any, to the 

Anders brief and motion to withdraw filed by appellate counsel on July 1, 2014.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 31, 2014
### SUBCHAPTER I—DIRECT PAYMENTS AND COUNTER-CYCLICAL PAYMENTS
<PAGE>

EX-99.1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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


     I, Jerome Drexler, the chief executive officer of Drexler Technology
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), certify pursuant to section
1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to my knowledge:

     (i)  the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2003 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and

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


                                                     /s/ Jerome Drexler
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Jerome Drexler


                                                     Date: August 8, 2003


                                      -23-
# C_2023295EN.01000101.xml

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11100 – MUTARES / WALOR INTERNATIONAL)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 295/01)

On 14 August 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11100. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11100. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah

Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:01 PM

To: 'Eric Albright'; Shane Young

Cc: Rios, Gerardo; Christenson, Kara; 'Dave Brown'

Subject: FW: SPI Anderson 

Shane and Eric,

Thanks for taking the time to discuss the SPI GHG application with me. As a follow up to our discussion, below are the

items SPI will be providing to EPA. Please let me know if you have any clarifications.  

1. Description of the existing kilns at facility.

2. Cost effectiveness data in $/ton for the catalytic oxidation.

3. Description of boiler features and measures that will be taken to ensure “good boiler design, good combustion

practices, and efficient operation,” which is provided as a baseline in step 1 of the GHG BACT analysis.

It would be helpful if you could send a response this week. Please let me know if you need more time than this.

Regards,

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

Shaheerah Kelly 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

Permits Office, Air Division 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: Dave Brown [mailto:DBrown@spi-ind.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:48 PM 

To: Kelly, Shaheerah 

Cc: Rios, Gerardo; Shane Young; Sloan, William M.; Dave Dun; Christenson, Kara 

Subject: SPI Anderson - Change in primary contact - FYI 

Shaheerah – We’re making a change in primary contact for SPI related to the Anderson PSD permit – please use Shane

Young as the primary SPI contact moving forward.  Below is Shane’s contact information

Shane Young

Facility Manager

Sierra Pacific Industries – Anderson Division

19758 Riverside Avenue

PO Box 10939

Anderson, CA  96007

530‐378‐8350 ph

530‐378‐8360 fax

swyoung@spi‐ind.com

Thank you,
2

David C. Brown, PE

Environmental Affairs & Compliance Manager

Sierra Pacific Industries

19794 Riverside Avenue

Redding, CA 96049-6028

(530) 378-8179

(530) 378-8139 fax

(530) 391-7650 cell

 

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This communication and any accompanying or attached document(s) are confidential and privileged. They are intended for the 

sole use of the addressee(s). If you receive this communication in error, you are advised that any use, disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in 

reliance upon this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please immediately telephone Sierra Pacific Industries at (530) 378-

8179, and delete this message without copying it. Thank you.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

William Melvin Edwards, Jr., Appellant

No. 06-17-00009-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 52nd District Court of 

Coryell County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 16-

23,249). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment by (1) removing all of the 

language under the “Terms of Plea Bargain” section, (2) removing any language assessing attorney 

fees, (3) removing the language incorporating Attachment A, and (4) reducing the assessed court 

costs to $412.00. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, William Melvin Edwards, Jr., has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 1, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 10.1




                          SETTLEMENT & WAIVER AGREEMENT

         THIS SETTLEMENT & WAIVER AGREEMENT ("Agreement"),  by and between Omega
Holdings,  Bahamas, Ltd., 201 Saffrey Square, P.O. Box N303, Bay Street and Bank
Lane,  Nassau,  Bahamas  ("Omega"),  and Light Management Group,  Inc., a Nevada
corporation  (the  "Company"),  (hereinafter  collectively  referred  to as  the
"Parties"),  is entered into this 1st day of March 2001, to settle the Company's
$3.1 million debt to Omega.

                                    RECITALS

         A. Omega paid  approximately  US$3.1 million on or before  September 1,
2000, which,  when  approximately 6% interest is computed through March 1, 2001,
equals $3,200,000 (the "Debt");

         B. The  Company  desires to settle  the Debt to Omega by issuing  Omega
shares of a newly created series of the Company's common stock.

                                    AGREEMENT

         NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, which are incorporated
herein by this reference,  and for and in  consideration of the mutual covenants
and agreements  contained  herein,  and in reliance on the  representations  and
warranties  set forth in this  Agreement,  the benefits to be derived herein and
for other valuable  consideration,  the sufficiency of which is hereby expressly
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

         1. The Company hereby agrees to repay the Debt by  immediately  issuing
Omega two million seven hundred  sixty-six  thousand seven hundred  ninety-eight
(2,766,798) shares of Series A Preferred Stock (the "Preferred Shares").

         2. Omega agrees to waive and fully discharge the Debt upon the issuance
of the Preferred Shares in Omega's name.

         3. The Company  represents  to Omega that no other shares of any series
of preferred stock are currently outstanding.

         4. Omega and the Company  agree that the execution of the above actions
will cancel the Debt as heretofore is owed by the Company to Omega.

         IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the signatures below hereby evidence the Parties
execution of and satisfaction with this Settlement Agreement.

Light Management Group, Inc.                     Omega Holdings, Bahamas, Ltd.


/s/ Donald Iwacha                                /s/ Cristina Santos
------------------------------                   -------------------------------
Dr. Donald Iwacha, President                     Cristina Santos, Directors
#### § 26.110 Are any of my Federal assistance awards exempt from this part?

This part does not apply to any award that the Head of the DOD Component or his or her designee determines that the application of this part would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the United States or the laws or regulations of a foreign government.
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 10.26.1


Comerica Bank - California

October 22, 2002


Mr. Jens Meyerhoff
Senior Vice President / CFO
Formfactor, Inc.
2140 Research Drive
Livermore, CA 94550


Re:   LOAN EXTENSION
      Borrower Name:  Formfactor, Inc.
      Loan Number/Note Number: 2879115265/18,59,91,117

Dear Jens:

Comerica Bank-California, as successor in interest to Imperial Bank, has
approved an extension of the above-referenced credit facility to December 31,
2002 from its current maturity as evidenced by that certain Note/Agreement dated
March 27, 2001 as may be or have been modified from time to time.

Except as modified and extended hereby, the existing loan documentation as
amended concerning your obligation remains in full force and effect.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Lorraine M. Sue

Lorraine M. Sue
Vice President

ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED ON OCTOBER 25, 2002

Formfactor, Inc.

By:   /s/ Jens Meyerhoff
    --------------------------
          Jens Meyerhoff
Exhibit 13.1

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 annual report of Sasol Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending
30 June 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our
knowledge:



Date: 7 October 2011By:

/s/ DAVID EDWARD CONSTABLEDavid Edward Constable Chief Executive OfficerDate: 7 October 2011By:

/s/ KANDIMATHIE CHRISTINE RAMONKandimathie Christine Ramon Chief Financial Officer


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

This
certification will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even if the document with which it is
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.

---



QuickLinks
### Part F—General Immigration Provisions
(June 9, 1960)

#### Sidney Hilton, Respondent, v. Adele Feinerman et al., Appellants.

— Motion to stay assessment of damages granted on condition that appellants be ready to argue or submit the appeal at the October 1960 Term, beginning October 3, 1960, for which term the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar. The record and appellants’ brief must be served and filed on or before September 1, 1960. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
### §463. Requirement to comply with laws protecting equal employment opportunity and providing whistleblower protections

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as exempting the Department from requirements applicable with respect to executive agencies—

(1) to provide equal employment protection for employees of the Department (including pursuant to the provisions in section 2302(b)(1) of title 5 and the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–174)); or

(2) to provide whistleblower protections for employees of the Department (including pursuant to the provisions in section 2302(b)(8) and (9) of such title and the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002).

(Pub. L. 107–296, title VIII, §883, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2247.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in introductory provisions, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 107–296, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2135, known as the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 101 of this title and Tables.

The Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, referred to in pars. (1) and (2), is Pub. L. 107–174, May 15, 2002, 116 Stat. 566, which is set out as a note under section 2301 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.
#### Charles Austin et al., Appellants, v Lynnea Carstens-Elliot et al., Respondents.

[831 NYS2d 734]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), entered December 12, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ request for a missing witness charge. *444Even if the plaintiffs satisfied, their initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of medical malpractice, testimony sought from that witness would have been cumulative *(see Gardiner v Wertheimer,*256 AD2d 381 [1998]; *Clements v Lindsey,*237 AD2d 557 [1997]; *Klombers v Lefkowitz,*131 AD2d 815, 816 [1987]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as it was not the subject of a timely objection at trial *(see*CPLR 4017, 5501[a] [3]; *Saratoga Spa & Bath v Beeche Sys. Corp.,*230 AD2d 326, 332-333 [1997]; *Pieniewski v Benbenek,*56 AD2d 710 [1977]; *Farhart v Matuljak,*283 App Div 977, 978 [1954]). Miller, J.P., Mastro, Ritter and Balkin, JJ., concur.