alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"21-1977: JOHNSON v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VpN2fL6s2L\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-14-2022-21-1977-johnson-v-mcdonough-opinion-21-1977-opinion-3-14-2022_1920925\/\">21-1977: JOHNSON v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-14-2022-21-1977-johnson-v-mcdonough-opinion-21-1977-opinion-3-14-2022_1920925\/embed\/#?secret=VpN2fL6s2L\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-1977: JOHNSON v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"VpN2fL6s2L\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: JOHNSON v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-1977 Origin: CAVC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
# Comments on: 2018-1020: United Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Company
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 130 (Thursday, July 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17002]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-354-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

June 29, 2000.
    Take notice that on June 23, 2000, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets listed 
on Appendix A to the filing, with a proposed effective date of August 
1, 2000.
    Columbia states that the purpose of this filing is to update its 
tariff consistent with Commission policy and decisions on tariff 
filings made by other interstate pipelines concerning permissible 
discounting arrangements and negotiated-rate authority related charges. 
Columbia's proposed tariff changes address an additional permissible 
discounted rate arrangement, negotiated rates and capacity release 
billing provisions, conversion of discount arrangements to negotiated 
rate arrangements, and the negotiation of surcharges and retainage.
    Columbia states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
firm customers, interruptible customers and affected state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-17002 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

Date: October 2, 2014 

Subject:Paraquat Dichloride. Revised Request For Expansion of the Potato Tolerance to Crop 

Subgroup 1 C. 

PC Code: 061601 

Decision No.: 483239 

Petition No.: 3E8201 

Risk Assessment Type: NA 

TXRNo.: NA 

DP Barcode: 0423136 

Registration No.: None 

Regulatory Action: Section 3 Registration 

Case No.: 0262 

CAS No.: 1910-42-5 

MRIO No.: None 40 CFR: 180.205 

From: T

Risk 

hurston 

Assessment 

G. Morton, 

Branch 

Chemist 

IV 

/7/J 

~. /) 1 4~ Health Effects Division (7509P) 

Through: Elissa Reaves, PhD, Branch Chief 

· Risk Assessment Branch IV 

Health Effects Division (7509P) 

To: Andrew Ertman 

Barbara Madden 

Risk Integration, Minor Use & Emergency Response Branch 

Registration Division (RD) (7505P) 

1 of2 
Paraquat Dichloride Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data Barcode: D423136 

Executive Summary 

Regulatory Recommendations and Residue Chemistry Deficiencies 

Previously recommendations were made for granting a registration for paraquat on the Crop 

Subgroup 1 C. The revocation of the ginger tolerance was inadvertently omitted. The tolerance 

on Crop Subgroup 1 C will cover ginger. The following is the corrected tolerance summary: 

Table 1. Tolerance Summary for Paraquat Dichloride 

Commodity Tolerance (ppm) Comments (correct commodity 

Established Proposed Recommended definition) 

Tolerances to be established under 40 CFR '180.205(a): 

Tuberous and corm -- 0.5 0.50 

vegetables subgroup I C 

Ginger 0.1 Revoke Covered by Tuberous and corm 

vegetables subgroup I C 

Potato 0.5 Revoke Covered by Tuberous and corm 

vegetables subgroup I C 

Tolerances to be revoked under 40 CFR •I80.205(c): 

Cassava 0.05 Revoke Covered by Tuberous and corm 

vegetables subgroup I C 

Tanier 0.05 Revoke Covered by Tuberous and corm 

vegetables subgroup I C 

Yam, true, tuber 0.05 Revoke Covered by Tuberous and corm 

vegetables subgroup I C 

2 of2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Patrick Chesnut","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/chesnutp\/","title":"Notice of New Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"29WmtkKzhX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-new-revised-protocols-for-in-person-argument-2\/\">Notice of New Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-new-revised-protocols-for-in-person-argument-2\/embed\/#?secret=29WmtkKzhX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice of New Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"29WmtkKzhX\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued\u00a0Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments (pdf) that will apply to the June 2022 court sitting and subsequent sittings until further notice.\u00a0 The current Revised Protocols for in-Person Arguments (pdf), issued January 18, 2022, will remain in place for the May 2022 session. \u00a0Based on the […]"}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Patrick Chesnut","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/chesnutp\/","title":"Public Notice of Show Cause Order to Unseal Certain Paper Case Records - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NdFwMkOytP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/public-notice-of-show-cause-order-to-unseal-certain-paper-case-records\/\">Public Notice of Show Cause Order to Unseal Certain Paper Case Records<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/public-notice-of-show-cause-order-to-unseal-certain-paper-case-records\/embed\/#?secret=NdFwMkOytP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Public Notice of Show Cause Order to Unseal Certain Paper Case Records” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"NdFwMkOytP\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit intends to unseal certain paper case records in accordance with Federal Circuit Rule 25.1(a)(1) in order to accomplish accession to the National Archives and Records Administration. Parties, counsel, or other impacted individuals with an interest in keeping sealed records in any case identified in the […]"}
No. 10-11186.

#### Mickens *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439

PETER R. MARKSTEINER CLERK’S OFFICE

CLERK OF COURT 202-275-8000

July 16, 2019

Change to Electronic Filing Procedures During Weather-Related Closures

Effective October 1, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit will no longer automatically consider weather-related closures as legal 

holidays for purposes of Federal Appellate Rule of Procedure 26. 

In the event of inclement weather closing the courthouse, the Clerk’s Office will 

continue to accept and to process filings submitted through the electronic case 

management system (CM/ECF), with electronic filing deadlines remaining in effect. 

The Clerk’s Office will also provide limited services by telephone and email.

Paper filings due on the date of weather-related closure will be deemed as timely 

filed if received by the next day the Clerk’s Office is open to the public. The Clerk’s 

Office will mark paper filings not delivered due to the closure as received on the 

next day the Clerk’s Office is open to the public.
U-Vend, Inc. 8-K


 




Exhibit 10.52





December 22, 2016


 


Mr. Raymond Meyers 


U-Vend, Inc. 


1507 7th Street, Suite 425 


Santa Monica, CA 90401


 


Re: Letter of Resignation


 


Dear Ray,


 


I am writing to officially tender my resignation effective December
31, 2016 as U-Vend’s Chief Operating Officer, Secretary, and Director.


 


Working at U-Vend and with you has been a tremendous learning experience.
I could not ask for a better group of professional colleagues. I have grown in many ways during my time here and I appreciate the
opportunities provided to me by U-Vend.


 


If I can be of any assistance in the future, please feel free to reach
out to me.


 


Your friend and colleague,


 


/s/ Paul Neelin


 


Paul Neelin


 


c: U-Vend Board of Directors
#### Andres Camacho RIOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-72815.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.*

Decided Feb. 23, 2004.

*977Martin Resendez Guajardo, Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendt-land, Luis E. Perez, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Andres Camacho Rios, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“U”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of asylum for substantial evidence, *Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ improperly concluded that Rios was not credible because although Rios’ asylum application did not specify that he received threats asking him to collaborate in a scheme to misappropriate chemicals, the application stated that he was directly threatened. *See Bandari v. INS,*227 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir.2000).

Substantial evidence, however, supports the IJ’s determination that the two or three anonymous threats against Rios were, without more, insufficient to demonstrate past persecution. *See Lim v. INS,*224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Rios’ fear- of future persecution was based on his position as a stevedore, which gave him access to ships carrying chemicals, and not on account of an enumerated ground. *See INS v. Elia-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

By faffing to qualify for asylum, Rios necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

We deny as moot Rios’ motion to stay removal pending a decision on his petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
§ 19.735-105 Availability of ethics and other conduct related regulations and statutes. ( a ) ( 1 ) The Commission shall furnish each new employee, at the time of his or her entrance on duty, with a copy of: ( i ) The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635);
( ii ) The Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Federal Communications Commission (5 CFR part 3901); and
( iii ) The Commission's Employee Responsibilities and Conduct regulations in this part.
( 2 ) The Head of each Office and Bureau has the responsibility to secure from every person subject to his or her administrative supervision a statement indicating that the individual has read and is familiar with the contents of the regulations in this part, and the regulations at 5 CFR parts 2635 and 3901, and to advise the Designated Agency Ethics Official that all such persons have provided such statements. Each new employee shall execute a similar statement at the time of entrance on duty. Periodically, and at least once a year, the Designated Agency Ethics Official shall take appropriate action to ensure that the Head of each Office and Bureau shall remind employees subject to his or her administrative supervision of the content of the regulations in 5 CFR parts 2635 and 3901 and this part.
( b ) Copies of pertinent provisions of the Communications Act of 1934; title 18 of the United States Code; the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch (5 CFR part 2635); the Commission's Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct (5 CFR part 3901); and the Commission's employee responsibilities and conduct regulations in this part shall be available in the office of the Designated Agency Ethics Official for review by employees.
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, Bruce Ramsden, Chief Financial Officer of Mountain Province
Diamonds Inc. (the “Company”), hereby 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:



| | 1. | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | By:    | /s/ Bruce Ramsden      
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Bruce Ramsden          
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| | Date:  | March 29, 2016         



This written statement is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of
this 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.



This certification accompanies this
Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth D. Denman, as Chief Executive Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., 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, (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 Openwave Systems Inc.



|                 |  |  |  |                                          
|---------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|                 |  |  |  | /s/ Kenneth D. Denman                    
|November 4, 2010 |  |  |  | Kenneth D. Denman Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Openwave
Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anne Brennan, as Chief Financial Officer of Openwave Systems Inc.,
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, (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 Openwave Systems Inc.



|                 |  |  |  |                                     
|---------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------
|                 |  |  |  | /s/ Anne Brennan                    
|November 4, 2010 |  |  |  | Anne Brennan Chief Financial Officer