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

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 this quarterly report on
Form 10-Q of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Oldham, Vice
President of Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paul Oldham                                                                  
|Paul Oldham                                                                      
|Vice President of Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary

Dated: February 10, 2011

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2006074EN.01000902.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/9

---

Action brought on 1 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-52/06)

(2006/C 74/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Simonetti and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2001/42 into national law expired on 21 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 197 of 21.7.2001, p. 30.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the Form 10-K of VLSI Technology, Inc. for the
fiscal year ended December 27, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000704386
<NAME> VLSI TECHNOLOGY INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         139,074
<SECURITIES>                                    66,685
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,708
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,200)
<INVENTORY>                                     56,361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               448,506
<PP&E>                                         772,565
<DEPRECIATION>                               (345,301)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 890,942
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          210,490
<BONDS>                                        209,973
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           472
<OTHER-SE>                                     470,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   890,942
<SALES>                                        716,770
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               716,770
<CGS>                                          433,197
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  433,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               358,568
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   416
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,042
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (83,973)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (34,426)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (49,547)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (49,547)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.08)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2006131EN.01004401.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/44

---

Action brought on 29 March 2006 — Neoperl v OHIM

(Case T-97/06)

(2006/C 131/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Neoperl GmbH (Müllheim, Germany) (represented by H. Börjes-Pestalozza, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul contested Decision R 0612/2005-4 and order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to publish application No 3 636 206 for the purposes of its registration as a Community trade mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul contested Decision R 0612/2005-4 and order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to publish application No 3 636 206 for the purposes of its registration as a Community trade mark.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three dimensional mark ‘Sanitärschlauch’ — shape of a tube — for goods in Classes 11 and 17 — Application No 3 636 206.

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2006103EN.01000101.xml

| 29.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 April 2006

(2006/C 103/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2537 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 143,29 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4608 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6942 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,297 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5713 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 93,81 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,757 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,576 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,42 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 264,08 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8747 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,475 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,61 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,395 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,66 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6599 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4097 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7204 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9818 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9853 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 182,49 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,6811 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0503 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2901 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 041,34 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,544 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,939 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,194 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,045 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2537

JPY

Japanese yen

143,29

DKK

Danish krone

7,4608

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6942

SEK

Swedish krona

9,297

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5713

ISK

Iceland króna

93,81

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,757

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,576

CZK

Czech koruna

28,42

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

264,08

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8747

RON

Romanian leu

3,475

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,61

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,395

TRY

Turkish lira

1,66

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6599

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4097

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7204

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9818

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9853

KRW

South Korean won

1 182,49

ZAR

South African rand

7,6811

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0503

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2901

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 041,34

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,544

PHP

Philippine peso

64,939

RUB

Russian rouble

34,194

THB

Thai baht

47,045

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.455 Special rules for MA Regional Plans. ( a ) *Coverage of entire MA region.* The service area for an MA regional plan will consist of an entire MA region established under paragraph (b) of this section, and an MA region may not be segmented as described in § 422.262(c)(2).
( b ) *Establishment of MA regions* — ( 1 ) *MA region.* The term “MA region” means a region within the 50 States and the District of Columbia as established by CMS under this section.
( 2 ) *Establishment* — ( i ) *Initial establishment.* By January 1, 2005, CMS will establish and publish the MA regions.
( ii ) *Periodic review and revision of service areas.* CMS may periodically review MA regions and may revise the regions if it determines the revision to be appropriate.
( 3 ) *Requirements for MA regions.* CMS will establish, and may revise, MA regions in a manner consistent with the following: ( i ) *Number of regions.* There will be no fewer than 10 regions, and no more than 50 regions.
( ii ) *Maximizing availability of plans.* The main purpose of the regions is to maximize the availability of MA regional plans to all MA eligible individuals without regard to health status, or geographic location, especially those residing in rural areas.
( 4 ) *Market survey and analysis.* Before establishing MA regions, CMS will conduct a market survey and analysis, including an examination of current insurance markets, to assist CMS in determining how the regions should be established.
( c ) *National plan.* An MA regional plan can be offered in more than one MA region (including all regions).
Motion Granted; Order filed January 10 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00844

- CV

____________ ALEXANDER OIL COMPAN Y , Appellant

V. JOHNNY CLINE; CLINE FUELS, INC.; G ULFTECH MARKETING, L P; JAMES L. AHERN, JR.; AND YELLOW BILL, LL C , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 53723



### ORDER
This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 28, 2018

. On October 23, 2018, this court abated the appeal and ordered the parties to conduct mediation. On December 21, 2018 , appellant filed a motion in which it notified this court that appellant and appellee s , Johnny Cline and Cline Fuels, Inc.
, have settled their dispute. Appellant moved to dismiss appellee s Johnny Cline and Cline Fuels, Inc. from the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The appeal is reinstated and the motion isgranted

. A ccordingly, a ppellee s , Johnny Cline and Cline Fuels, Inc.
, are or dered

dismissed from the appeal.

The s tyle of the case shall now read Alexander Oil Company v. Gulftech Marketing, LP; James L. Ahern, Jr.; and Yellow Bill, LLC

. The record is due to be filed in this court 30 days from the date of this order.

PER CU RIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot.
#### BANK OF WILLOW SPRINGS, Appellant, v. J. T. SMITH et al., Respondent.

Springfield Court of Appeals,

December 5, 1910.

APPELLATE PRACTICE: Defective Abstract: Filing Bill of Exceptions. Where the printed abstract failed to show that a bill of exceptions was filed, and also failed to show that any objections were made to the introduction of evidence at the trial, or to the instructions at the time the court passed on the same,nothing but the record proper can be considered by the appellate court.

Appeal from Douglas Circuit Court.— *Eon. John T. Moore,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*J. 8. Clarke*for appellant.

*J. W. Thornbury, A. E. Buchanan*for respondents.

(1) Appellants have not filed in this court an abstract such as is required by the rules of this court, and the statutes and laws of the state. R. S. 1909', secs. 2048, 2051; Novinger & Son v. Railroad, 131 Mo. App. 337; Cross v. Henderson, 1291 Mo. App. 537; Clay v. Publishing Co., 200 Mo. 665 ; Harding v. Bedoll, 202 Mo. 625; Greenwood v. Parlin *&*Orendorff Co., 98 Mo. App. 407; Harris v. Wilson, 199 Mo. 412; Brand v. Cannon, 118 Mo. 595; Ely v. Coontz, 167 Mo. 371; Banks v. Hutton, 224 Mo. 52.

*698GRAY, J.

This suit was commenced before a justice of the peace in Douglas county, October 7, 1908. by filing with the justice a promissory note. The defendants obtained a judgment before the justice, and plaintiff appealed. The trial in the circuit court also resulted in a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appealed to this court.

The defendants challenge the sufficiency of plaintiff’s abstract of the record, and claim that on account of the defects therein, matters of exception are not before us for review. The abstract does not show that any bill of exceptions was filed. The only reference to a bill of exceptions is the following: “Appellant given ninety days within which to file its bill of exceptions.” There are some instructions found in the so-called abstract of the record, but no objections to the action of the court on the same are found in the record. The same is true as to the evidence. The abstract shows that plaintiff excepted to the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial in arrest, but it does not show that any objections were made to the introduction of evidence at the trial or to the instructions at the time the court passed on the same. The objection to the abstract is well taken. [Jenkins v. Shannon Co., 226 Mo. 187, 125 S. W. 1100; Thompson v. Carr, 143 Mo. App. 581, 128 S. W. 35.]

There is no reversible error found in the record proper, and as matters of exception are not before us, there is nothing to do but to affirm the judgment, which is accordingly done.

All concur.
# Tajikistan

81 items

        -    Report  		2021 Investment Climate Statements: Tajikistan	  July 21, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement of the C5+1 on the International Conference “Central and South Asia: Regional Connectivity, Challenges and Opportunities”	  July 16, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		The Eighth U.S.-Tajikistan Annual Bilateral Consultations	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Tajikistan Foreign Minister Muhriddin	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Tajikistan	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Tajikistan	  June 25, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Tajikistan Foreign Minister Muhriddin	  June 1, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Tajikistan	  May 12, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the C5+1 Virtual Ministerial	  May 4, 2021 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with the C5+1	  April 23, 2021 

previous page1…34567…9next page

Back to Top
# C_2006036EN.01001202.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/12

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 December 2005

in Case C-250/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/19/EC - Access to electronic communications networks and associated facilities - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 36/22)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-250/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Zavvos and M. Shotter) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 14 June 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 07.08.2004.

1

---
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with UK National Security Adviser Barrow

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with UK National Security Adviser Barrow							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

December 5, 2022

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman met with UK National Security Adviser Tim Barrow today in London. They affirmed plans for continued support to Ukraine, including in the face of Russia’s ongoing, outrageous attacks on critical infrastructure. They also discussed shared priorities such as supporting a free and open Indo-Pacific, maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and working expeditiously to come to agreement with the EU on implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary TripDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonUnited Kingdom

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
#### Henry Van Allen, Plaintiff, *v.*Frederick W. Dunton et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, Queens Special Term,

July, 1898.)

Taxpayer’s action to set aside gas contract — Complaint —Demurrer.

*Semble,*that where a taxpayer sues 'to set aside, upon the ground of fraud and illegality, a gaslighting contract entered into between officials and a corporation, it is erroneous for the complaint to set up each instance of illegality or fraud as an independent cause of action. Where the pleader has made such a separation, an allegation that the meeting of the officials, at the hearing upon the petition to establish the gas district, was not held within that district, is insufficient and demurrable as such.

Suit in equity by a taxpayer to have the contract entered into between the defendant officials and the defendant company annulled for alleged illegalities and frauds.

B. J. Humphrey, for plaintiff.

H. A. Monfort, for defendants.

Gaynor J.

■ This is a suit in equity by a taxpayer to have the contract entered into between the defendant officials and the defendant company annulled for alleged illegalities and frauds. There is but one cause of action in law and in fact, but the complaint strangely separates and sets out each specification of alleged illegality or fraud as an independent cause of action. The fifth, which is that the meeting of the defendant officials at the hearing upon the petition for the establishing of the gas district for the lighting of which the Contract was made was not held within such district, is demurred to for insufficiency. It is difficult to deal with such crude and unscientific pleading, but inasmuch as the matter is set up as a separate cause -of action, and insisted upon by the plaintiff’s attorney as such, and the defendants’ attorney has taken him at his word, the court does likewise.

The fact stated is insufficient, and the demurrer is sustained, with costs.

Demurrer sustained, with costs.
EXHIBIT
18
 
 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 Utah Medical Products, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul O.
Richins, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (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/ Paul O.
Richins
 Paul O.
Richins
 Principal
Financial Officer
 March 6,
2009
 
 
 A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
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.