alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant
      to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GenTek Inc. (the Company) for the three months ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), William E. Redmond, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas B. Testa, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ | William E. Redmond, Jr. | 
|--- | ----------------------- | 
|    |                         | 
|    | William E. Redmond, Jr. | 
|    | Chief Executive Officer | 
|    | May 15, 2007            | 
|    |                         | 
|    |                         | 
|/s/ | Thomas B. Testa         | 
|    |                         | 
|    | Thomas B. Testa         | 
|    | Chief Financial Officer | 
|    | May 15, 2007            | 



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 23, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00779

- CR

The STATE of Texas

, Appellant

v.

Martin M . RIOS, J r.,

Appellee

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 9892CR

Honorable Spencer W. Brown, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The State ’ s Motion Relating to Case Records and to Findings of Fact an d Conclusions of

La w is hereby DENIED

.

____________ _____________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 23rd day of January, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### Clyola P. TUNNARD v. James D. TUNNARD.

No. 11640.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1977.

*497Joel B. Dickinson, Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiff-appellant, Clyola P. Tun-nard.

Martin C. Schroeder, Jr., Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellee, James D. Tunnard.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.

PONDER, Judge.

Plaintiff appealed from the award of a separation from bed and board on grounds of mutual fault.1

The issues are the admissibility of some evidence and the correctness of the lower court’s finding of mutual fault.

We affirm.

Plaintiff complains of the court’s admission of evidence beyond the allegations of defendant’s reconventional demand and some hearsay evidence.

In his answer, defendant made some allegations of habitual intemperance and specified at least one instance. In his re-conventional demand he alleged habitual intemperance, a suicide attempt and extreme cruelty, all in quite general terms. Without objection plaintiff’s witnesses were cross-examined about alcoholism, the suicide attempt and an attempt to pour hot water on defendant. Plaintiff objected to the question: “Was she drunk?” directed to defendant without specifying the ground therefor. She objected to a question as to acts of cruelty without specifying the grounds but evidently on the basis of relevancy because the time was not specified. She objected to the leading nature of another question. These objections were overruled. Then for the first time plaintiff objected to questioning about a shooting incident because it had not been pled. The judge overruled the objection saying that the incident could be corroborative of the other evidence of cruelty. Thus it can be seen that plaintiff’s objection of no basis in the pleading was to evidence of the shooting, not to all acts of cruelty, many of which were received into evidence without objection and others without objection on that ground. We find no error.

Plaintiff complains of the court’s sustaining defendant’s objections to hearsay and overruling plaintiff’s objections to hearsay, without being specific of the instances. While the court was quite lenient in its rulings, we find no prejudicial error since there was sufficient evidence otherwise, and the incidents related were corrob*498orative of that evidence. In the one instance in which plaintiffs objection to hearsay was made and overruled, the answer finally given was not subject to that objection.

Plaintiff’s other argument is that the trial court erred in finding mutual fault. We have examined the record and find that the court was correct in its conclusion.

We affirm the judgment. Plaintiff is cast with all costs of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

1

. LSA-C.C. Article 141

> “A separation from bed and board shall be granted although both spouses are mutually at fault in causing the separation. In such instances, alimony pendente lite may be allowed but permanent alimony shall not be allowed thereafter following divorce.”
### "oEFlcl~i#~Mi~~1)1Ml'm~.j'h**~·~CRIMINAL** APPEALS OF TEXAS 

### OF L.:I(.'' ')..'**.~,** 'r"''"'.-

...... ....,

. I 'P .•**!.'~~~~\'G~P.ll:0L6T~~IQN···:~y~~~lN~T-~~S7_~:?i!:I>QSTAGE))PITNEYBOWES**

### STAT.~-DFJ~A~ w •. t:

### ~{¥.}~· 

### .• -d·r::2:

### ({([.~,.**1Jr~~3'** 

### PE,NAL

## t{;.~Q'~**·*-:#~~~****-'~** b • 

## '*.**~ ~**  

## · 7

## ~ = 

## -·PRJVATE'lJSE**.r:?:~:)~~,~·'J:** 

# ..**~~** it!

...

### ~.~ ZIP 78701 

## $**(Q)(Q)(Q).~15** .r.._**.~** a::.a: :r.- 02 WI N.<>::**~~·** .,. • •• 0001401623 SEP'18 2015

9/16/2015 

# 6·5'f**·-s~~~ }~**  'PRUNEDA, EDUARDO JR

### li(~~C!.**N9::~Q.,099R2071W-W1** WR-83,836-02

Th_is is to advise that the

### Cou_rf'll~s~>.,~~~~it~t**wri~ten** order

### th~ application for

wnt of habea-'5'-sorous on the**ftndln§~l** court w1thout a heanng.

Abel Acosta, Clerk**r·~38** 78:207
#### Herman L. HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-86.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 10, 1971.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, Gerald Sohn and Bartley K. Vickers, Asst, Public Defenders, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Thomas B. Calhoun and William W. Herring, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

RAWLS, Judge.

Defendant appeals a life imprisonment sentence in a first degree murder conviction. Hall and two co-defendants (Albert Paschal and Mitchell Simpson) were indicted for the murder of Sidney Parnell. During the robbery of a grocery store where they both worked Sidney attempted to aid his mother who was being assaulted by one of the robbers and was fatally shot. The three defendants were tried together. Defendant Simpson was acquitted. Defendant Paschal was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. Defendant Hall was found guilty of murder with a recommendation of mercy and sentenced to life imprisonment.

In this appeal Hall has raised some eleven points to be considered by this court. It is noted that all but two of these points were raised and fully argued by Paschal in his direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The remaining two points; i. e., allegedly improper representation by the Public Defender and an allegedly improper remark made by the bailiff, we find to be without merit. The one point which did concern this court was the identification of the defendants by witnesses at an inquest held prior to the trial. This issue has been fully considered and resolved against the defendants in Paschal v. State, 251 So.2d 257, opinion filed May 19, 1971. The conclusion reached by the Supreme Court upon this issue is binding.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.34


                        AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made this 31st
day of December, 1998, by and between ENCORE ORTHOPEDICS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, with its principal office located at 9800 Metric Blvd., Austin,
Texas 78758 (the "Company") and KATHY WIEDERKEHR, an individual resident at
11501 Cherry Hearst, Austin, Texas 78750  (the "Employee").

     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company entered into a Severance Agreement
dated April 1, 1997 (the "Agreement") which provided, inter alia, for certain
payments to be made in the event that certain events occurred with respect to
the Employee's employment relationship with the Company;

     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company desire that there be certain changes
made with respect to the Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee want to memorialize in this Amendment
their agreements regarding such changes to the Agreement.

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other mutual promises
and covenants contained in this Amendment and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties, intending legally to be bound, agree as follows:

     1. Section 2(c) of the Agreement shall be deleted and shall have no further
force and effect.

     2. Except as specifically changed by the Amendment, all other terms and
provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by
its duly authorized officer and the Employee has hereunto set its hand as of the
date and year first written above.


                                       ENCORE:

                                       ENCORE ORTHOPEDICS, INC.


                                       By: /s/ NICK CINDRICH
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Nick Cindrich, Chief Executive Officer


                                       EMPLOYEE:

                                       /s/ KATHY WIEDERKEHR
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       KATHY WIEDERKEHR
- 1 -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AARON JOLO, : No. 4:15-cv-01845

:

Petitioner, : (Judge Brann)

:

v. :

:

ATTORNEY GENERAL, :

:

Respondent. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6

th day of July, 2016, the Government having 

reported to the Court regarding a change in Petitioner’s status and both 

parties having been afforded leave to address said change, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

1. In light of Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York County Prison, 

783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015), United States Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement shall provide Petitioner with an 

individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge 

within a reasonable period of time to determine whether 

Petitioner’s continued detention is necessary to fulfill the 

Case 4:15-cv-01845-MWB Document 31 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

purposes of ensuring that the he attends removal proceedings 

and that his release will not pose a danger to the community.

2. The Government should bear the burden at this hearing of 

presenting evidence and proving that continued detention is 

necessary to fulfill the purposes of the detention statute.

3. The immigration court shall retain jurisdiction over any 

challenge to the immigration judge’s substantive bond 

decision through the Board of Immigration Appeals before 

any such challenge to the immigration judge’s decisions may 

be raised with this Court.

4. The Report and Recommendation of Chief United States 

Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, ECF No. 21, is ADOPTED 

IN FULL to the extent that it is consistent with the foregoing.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann 

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01845-MWB Document 31 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit      23.1

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration      Statements of Socket Mobile, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2011, relating      to the financial statements of Socket Mobile, Inc. (the "Company")      (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory      paragraph regarding going concern uncertainty), included in this Annual      Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

-  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-109150) pertaining        to the 2,491,163 (post reverse split 249,116) shares of common stock of        the Company; 
-  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-104632) pertaining        to the 4,844,797 (post reverse split 484,480) shares of common stock of        the Company; 
-  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-100754) pertaining        to the 4,830,250 (post reverse split 483,025) shares of common stock of        the Company; 
-  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-87348) pertaining        to the 500,104 (post reverse split 50,010) shares of common stock of the        Company; 
-  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-96231) pertaining        to the 2,662,638 (post reverse split 266,263) shares of common stock of        the Company; 
-  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-82591) pertaining        to the 3,005,909 (post reverse split 300,059) shares of common stock of        the Company; 
-  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-159923) pertaining        to the 645,981 shares of common stock of the Company; 
-  Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-171267) pertaining        to the 1,310,398 shares of common stock of the Company; 
-  Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-165984, 333-157975,        333-149688, 333-141587, 333-132345 and 333-123396) pertaining to the 2004        Equity Incentive Plan of Socket Mobile, Inc.; 
-  Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-85721 and        333-59838) pertaining to the 1999 Nonstatutory Stock Plan; 
-  Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-123396, 333-106502,        333-87368, 333-85721, 333-68347, 333-66060, 333-59838, and 333-07669)        pertaining to the 1995 Equity Incentive Plan; and 
-  Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-106502) pertaining        to the Socket Communications 401(k) Plan.  

 

| /s/        Moss Adams LLP          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|

             

Santa      Clara, California       March 15, 2011
EXHIBIT 32.2


                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                              CET SERVICES, INC.
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of CET Services, Inc. for the period ending December 31, 2006:

     (1)     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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of CET
Services, Inc.






/s/ Dale W. Bleck
Dale W. Bleck
Chief Financial Officer
March 9, 2006


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to CET Services, Inc. and will
be retained by CET Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission upon request.
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007 

SEC. 413. ENERGY CODE IMPROVEMENTS APPLICABLE TO MANUFACTURED 

HOUSING. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall by regulation establish standards for energy efficiency in manufactured 

housing. 

(2) NOTICE, COMMENT, AND CONSULTATION.—Standards described in paragraph 

(1) shall be established after— 

(A) notice and an opportunity for comment by manufacturers of manufactured 

housing and other interested parties; 

and 

(B) consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who may 

seek further counsel from the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee. 

(b) REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE.—The energy conservation 

standards established under this section shall be based on the most recent version of the 

International Energy Conservation Code (including supplements), except in cases in 

which the Secretary finds that the code is not cost effective, or a more stringent standard 

would be more cost effective, based on the impact of the code on the purchase price of 

manufactured housing and on total life-cycle construction and operating costs. 

(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—The energy conservation standards established under this 

section may— 

(A) take into consideration the design and factory construction techniques of 

manufactured homes; 

(B) be based on the climate zones established by the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development rather than the climate zones under the International Energy 

Conservation Code; 

and 

(C) provide for alternative practices that result in net estimated energy 

consumption equal to or less than the specified standards. 

(3) UPDATING.—The energy conservation standards established under this section shall 

be updated not later than— 

(A) 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act; 

and 

(B) 1 year after any revision to the International Energy Conservation Code. 

(c) ENFORCEMENT.—Any manufacturer of manufactured housing that violates a provision of 

the regulations under subsection (a) is liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount 

not exceeding 1 percent of the manufacturer’s retail list price of the manufactured housing.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JAMES E. LAWRENCE, 

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2023-1829

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 23-33, Judge Grant Jaquith. 

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by 

Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the 

rules, it is 

Case: 23-1829 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 08/07/2023
2 LAWRENCE V. MCDONOUGH 

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same 

hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

August 7, 2023

Date /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 7, 2023

Case: 23-1829 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 08/07/2023
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsInput-output characterization of fiber composites by SH wavesInput-output characterization of fiber composites is studied theoretically by tracing SH waves in the media. A fiberglass epoxy composite is modeled as a homogeneous transversely isotropic continuum plate. The reflection of an SH wave at a stress-free plane boundary in a semi-infinite transversely isotropic medium is considered first. It is found that an incident SH wave reflects only a similar SH wave back into the medium. It is also established that the angle of reflection of the reflected wave is equal to the angle of incidence of the incident wave. The phase velocity of the SH waves and the delay time of the SH waves in reaching the receiving transducer are computed as functions of a reflection index, defined as the number of reflections of the SH waves from the bottom face of the continuum plate. The directivity function corresponding to the shear stress associated with the SH waves in the continuum plate is also derived as a function of the reflection index. A theoretical output voltage from the receiving transducer is calculated for a tone burst (a periodic input voltage of finite duration). The output voltage is shown for tone bursts of duration 60 microseconds and center frequencies of 0.75, 1.00, and 1.25 MHz. The study enhances the quantitative and qualitative understanding of the nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of fiber composites which can be modeled as transversely isotropic media.Document ID19880014602Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsRenneisen, John D.*(Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. Cambridge, MA, United States)*Williams, James H., Jr.*(Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. Cambridge, MA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1988Publication InformationPublisher: NASASubject CategoryQuality Assurance And ReliabilityReport/Patent NumberE-4043NASA-CR-4153NAS 1.26:4153Accession Number88N23986Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-43-11CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-328Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19880014602.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024