alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

and
Principal 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 accompanying Form 10-K of Sunrise Telecom
Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 2006, we, Paul A. Marshall , President and Chief Executive Officer and Richard D. Kent, Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Sunrise Telecom Incorporated, hereby certify to the best of our
knowledge, that:



| | (1) |  | such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Sunrise Telecom Incorporated.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                                                                                     
|-------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|April 10, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/     PAUL A.
MARSHALL                                                            
|Date           |  |  |  | PAUL A. MARSHALL President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|               |  | 
|April 10, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    RICHARD D.
KENT                                                              
|Date           |  |  |  | RICHARD D. KENT Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1948

KATHLEEN LAMB DORSEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, AT WILMINGTON;

SAMUEL B. CONNALLY, individually and in his

official capacity as associate director of

Human Resources, UNCW,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CA-93-96-7-BR)

Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: June 30, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kathleen Lamb Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. Celia Grasty Jones, Joyce

S. Rutledge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kathleen Lamb Dorsey appeals the district court’s order

granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this action alleging unlawful employment practices, in violation of Title VII, 42

U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to -17 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Dorsey v. University of North Carolina at Wilmington, No.

CA-93-96-7-BR (E.D.N.C. June 20, 1997). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit (a)(5) 

DWS GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL FUND, INC.

 

CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION

 

DWS GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL FUND, INC., a Maryland corporation (which is hereinafter called the “Corporation”), hereby certifies to the State Department of Assessments and Taxation of Maryland (which is hereinafter referred to as the "SDAT") that:

 

FIRST:            The title of the documents being corrected by this Certificate of Correction are: (i) the Articles of Amendment and Restatement of the Corporation that was filed with and accepted for record by the SDAT on June 26, 2006 (the “Articles of Amendment and Restatement”); (ii) the Articles Supplementary of the Corporation that was filed with and accepted for record by the SDAT on February 15, 2008 (the “First Articles Supplementary”); (iii) the Articles Supplementary of the Corporation that was filed with and accepted for record by the SDAT on May 23, 2008 at 4:11 PM (the “Second Articles Supplementary”); and (iv) the Articles Supplementary of the Corporation that was filed with and accepted for record by the SDAT on May 23, 2008 at 4:12 PM (the “ThirdArticles Supplementary”).

 

SECOND:      The name of the sole party to the Articles of Amendment and Restatement, First Articles Supplementary, Second Articles Supplementary and Third Articles Supplementary is DWS Global/International Fund, Inc.

 

THIRD:          The Articles of Amendment and Restatement were filed for record with the SDAT on June 26, 2006, the First Articles Supplementary were filed for record with the SDAT on February 15, 2008 and the Second Articles Supplementary and Third Articles Supplementary were filed for record with the SDAT on May 23, 2008.

 

FOURTH:   As previously filed, the first sentence of Article FIFTH, Section 5.1 of the Articles of Amendment and Restatement stated that the Corporation shall have the authority to issue one billion, five hundred fifty nine million, nine hundred thirty three thousand seven hundred ninety six (1,559,933,796) shares of capital stock, with a par value of $0.01 per share, for an aggregate par value of fifteen million five hundred ninety nine thousand three hundred seventy seven dollars and ninety six cents ($15,599,377.96).  

 

FIFTH:           The first sentence of Article FIFTH, Section 5.1 of the Articles of Amendment and Restatement is hereby corrected to state that the Corporation shall have the authority to issue one billion, five hundred fifty nine million, nine hundred ninety three thousand seven hundred ninety six (1,559,993,796) shares of capital stock, with a par value of $0.01 per share, for an aggregate par value of fifteen million five hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred thirty seven dollars and ninety six cents ($15,599,937.96).

 

SIXTH:           As previously filed, the first sentence of Section (a) of Article SECOND of the First Articles Supplementary indicates that immediately prior to the filing of the First Articles Supplementary the Corporation had the authority to issue one billion, five 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28776]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service

7 CFR Part 500


National Arboretum

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service; USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (USDA) established a schedule of 
fees to be charged for certain uses of the facilities, grounds, and 
services at the United States National Arboretum (USNA).

DATES: Sections 500.22 and 500.23 are effective October 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, National Arboretum, 
Beltsville Area, ARS, 3501 New York Avenue, NE., Washington, D.C. 
20002; (202) 245-4539.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 3, 1997, the USNA published a 
final rule adopting a schedule of fees to be charged for certain uses 
of the facilities, grounds and services of the USNA. See 62 FR 46431, 
September 3, 1997. The final rulemaking document specified that 
sections 500.22 and 500.23 of that rule would not become effective 
until approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of new 
information collection requirements contained in those sections. The 
new information collection requirements were approved by OMB on October 
6, 1997. See OMB No. 0518-0024. This publication satisfies the 
statement in the final rule that the USDA would publish a document 
notifying the public of the effective date of sections 500.22 and 
500.23.

    Done at Washington, D.C., this 24th day of October, 1997.
Edward B. Knipling,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Research Service.
[FR Doc. 97-28776 Filed 10-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-M
U.S. Department Of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 

 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 

 April 7, 1989  Refer to:  HNG-14/SS-09A  Mr. James W. Young Franklin Steel P.O. Box 671 Franklin, Pennsylvania 16323  Dear Mr. Young:  In our March 16 letter accepting your company’s Eze-Erect Sign Posts for use on Federal-aid projects we cited ASTM A 1-76 steel as the material from which the posts are made.  Actually, the test reports your supplied to verify the breakaway acceptability of the posts indicate that the tested posts were made of ASTM A 499-81, Grade 60, steel and that they had chemical characteristics exceeding the minimum chemical requirements for ASTM A 1-76 rails weighting 91 pounds per yard or more.  This letter is simply to document that our acceptance of the Eze-Erect Sign Posts is based on the posts being manufactured from materials meeting the requirements of ASTM A 499-81, Grade 60, steel and having chemical characteristics equaling or exceeding the minimum chemical requirements for ASTM A 1-76 rails weighing 91 pounds per yard or more.         Sincerely yours,          L. A. Staron, Chief        Federal-Aid and Design Division
Clinical Investigator 

Development Program

Application Deadline: 

September 30, 2018

Program Starts July 1, 2019

Are you a board-eligible or 

board-certified physician interested 

in dedicating your career to clinical 

research?

Are you looking to transition from a

mentored position to an independent 

investigator in laboratory-based or 

patient-oriented research? 

Consider the Clinical Investigator Development Program at the National Cancer Institute’s 

Center for Cancer Research. This highly competitive program offers:

• Funding that supports innovative, high-impact bench-to-bedside research

• Competitive salary and loan repayment opportunities

• Opportunity to serve as principal investigator on clinical trials

• Access to the largest hospital in the world devoted exclusively to clinical research

• Extensive shared research resources

• Access to a broad range of scientific and clinical expertise and cutting-edge medical technologies

Who We Are

The Center for Cancer Research comprises nearly 250 teams conducting basic, translational and clinical 

research in the NCI intramural program — an environment supporting innovative science aimed at improving 

human health. CCR’s clinical program is housed at the NIH Clinical Center — the world’s largest hospital 

dedicated to clinical research. For more information about CCR and its programs, visit ccr.cancer.gov.

Apply via the Positions at NIH Portal: https://irp-positions.nih.gov/job/CIDP2018 

Submission is open June 1 – September 30, 2018

Questions? Email ApplyCIDP@mail.nih.gov

HHS, NIH, and NCI are Equal Opportunity Employers

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health

HOW TO APPLY

Center for Cancer Research
#### Dewey HALL and Flo Hall, paternal grandparents of Ronnie E. Nosler, minor child of Ronald and Linda Marie Nosler, Appellants, v. Ronald NOSLER and Linda Marie Nosler, now Linda Marie Kern, Appellees.

No. 73-99.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 27, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Indian River County; Wallace Sample, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 10.3

Dominos Pizza, Inc.

Independent Director Compensation Schedule

The following table sets forth the compensation received by independent directors of Dominos Pizza, Inc., effective July 1, 2006:



|                                                                   |  |        |                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------ | ---------------------
|Compensation Type                                                  |  | Amount
|Annual Retainer                                                    |  | $      | 40,000 per year      
|Board of Directors Meeting Fee                                     |  | $      | 2,000 per meeting    
|Committee Meeting Fee                                              |  | $      | 1,500 per meeting    
|Audit Chairperson Retainer                                         |  | $      | 15,000 per year      
|Compensation Committee Chairperson Retainer                        |  | $      | 10,000 per year      
|Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chairperson Retainer |  | $      | 10,000 per year      
|Annual Stock Option Grant                                          |  |        | 7,500 shares per year
demonstrate prejudice resulting from consideration of information or

accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence," 

### Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976). Regardless of its severity, a sentence that is within the statutory limits is not 'cruel and unusual punishment unless the statute fixing punishment is unconstitutional or the sentence is so unreasonably disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience." 

### Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996) (quoting 

### CuIverson V. 

### State, 95 Nev. 433, 435, 596 P.2d 220, 221-22 (1979)); 

### see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion) (explaining that Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence; it forbids only an extreme sentence that is grossly disproportionate to the crime).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion or impose a cruel or unusual sentence. The sentences imposed are within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes. 

### See NRS 193.165, NRS 199.480(1)(a), (b), NRS 200.030, NRS 200.320, NRS 200.380. Appellant does not allege that the statutes are unconstitutional or that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence when imposing sentence. Despite the mitigating considerations presented to the district court, the sentence imposed is not grossly disproportionate to the crime: appellant planned and executed a brutal murder for a minor pecuniary gain. And no relief is warranted based on the district court's failure to state its reasons for the sentence imposed. Appellant did not object, so we review for plain error. 

### See NRS 178.602 (providing that plain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be addressed even if not raised below). Appellant has not identified any controlling authority establishing

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 19474 410149Douglas 

# C kut rut,

error and we decline his request to adopt a new procedural requirement that a sentencing court must state the• reasons for its decision when imposing a life-without-parole sentence. Appellant fails to demonstrate plain error requiring a new sentencing hearing. See Green v. State, 119 Nev. 542, 545, 80 P.3d 93, 95 (2003) (describing plain error review). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.



## c..t.foa J. Parraguirre

Cherry J.

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge Special Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 10) I94Th
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7095

LEROY J. BAXTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-1610, CA-97-165)

Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 17, 1997

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

LeRoy J. Baxter, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Baxter v. Virginia Parole Bd., Nos. CA-96-1610; CA-97-165

(E.D. Va. July 10, 1997). We deny Appellant's request for oral

argument and dispense with argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 10326 Summary Calendar

ROSE ANN JUAREZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. HIGHLAND HOMES, LIMITED; REUNION TITLE; BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, formerly known as CWB Mortgage Ventures, L.L.C., doing business as Highland Loansource; MERS; PROVENCE AT FIREWHEEL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, et al; SFTF HOLDINGS, L.L.C., et al,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14

- CV

- 2173

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Proceeding pro se , Rose Ann Juarez appeals the district court’s dismissal of her action seeking , inter alia , to enjoin the foreclosure of her property after
she default ed on her mortgage payments. The district court dismissed all of

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 25, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-10326 Document: 00513355030 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2016No. 15

- 10326

2 Juarez’s claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) upon concluding that they were barred by res judicata in light of her previous lawsuit that involved substantially the same parties and the same transaction. In addition, t he
district court concluded that Juarez ’s complaint had failed to allege sufficient facts stating a plausible claim against Reunion give n that Reunion “was not a party to the mortgage, did not receive title to the Property, was not a payee, or the seller or lender of the Property, or a beneficiary to the deed of trust.” In her brief on appeal , Juarez identifies no error in the district c ourt’s reasoning that her claims were barred by res judicata or that her complaint failed to state a claim against Reunion. Although we must liberally construe the briefs of pro se litigants, “ pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comp ly with the standards of Rule 28.” Grant v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Given her failure to adequately identify any error in the district court’s decision, Juarez’s brief does not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Toala v. Marriott White Lodging Corporate , 456 F. App’x 476, 477 (5th Cir. 2012). Therefore, we DISMISS the a ppeal for want of prosecution. See id. Case: 15-10326 Document: 00513355030 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2016
Title VI Goals and Accomplishments Report 

What is a Title VI Goals and Accomplishments Report? 

The Title VI Goals and Accomplishments (G&A) Report is an annual report wriƩen by each State 

Highway AdministraƟon (SHA) to document their progress toward compliance with Title VI in their 

programs and acƟviƟes. The G&A Report should list all of the accomplishments that the SHA has 

achieved in the area of Title VI, such as program area reviews, training, and processing of Title VI 

complaints. The Goals secƟon of the report explains what the SHA plans to accomplish in the upcoming year in relaƟon to their Title VI program. 

Who is required to prepare an annual G&A Report? 

SHAs are required to annually prepare a G&A report. This requirement comes from, 23 CFR §200.9

(b)(10), which states: SHAs shall “Prepare a yearly report of Title VI accomplishments for the past 

year and goals for the next year.” 

Is the G&A Report part of the Title VI Plan? 

The G&A Report is separate document from the Title VI ImplementaƟon Plan. The Title VI Plan covers standard procedures for the SHA Title VI program where the G&A Report covers acƟviƟes that

were carried out by the SHA and those acƟviƟes planned for the next year.

What is the process for G&A Report submiƩal and review? 

SHAs should submit their G&A Report to FHWA division offices yearly on a schedule agreed upon 

by the SHA and FHWA division office. Submission of the G&A report assists FHWA division offices 

in their oversight of Title VI. 

What does FHWA review in a G&A Report? 

1. Program Area Reviews—number of reviews, results, and acƟons taken 

2. Sub-recipient Reviews– number of reviews, results, and acƟons taken

3. Training—number of trainings, topics covered, aƩendees, audience, and follow up (if any) 

4. Title VI Complaints—number and status of complaints received and forwarded to FHWA 

5. CorrecƟve AcƟon Plans—detailed report of ongoing or completed CAP acƟviƟes. 

Where do I go for more informaƟon? 

Please visit the FHWA Title VI website for more informaƟon on Title VI G&A Reports.
### Attachment B **- 2**  **. School Agreement Form**  **School Agreement to Participate in a Research Study**  As the authorized official of _____

_____________ school, Iam agre eing to the participation of this school in the study entitled Understanding the Impact of Providi ng Information to Parents about the Role of Algebra II: An Opportunistic Study being conducted b y REL Southwest. I have been given a full description of the project and understand that school personnel will be ask ed to perform the following functions:  Dis tribution of informational materials to students via mail I understand I will be provided with a report on the outcome of the study upon approval from the U.S. Department of Education. The school sy stem will also receive reimbursement for the cost of staf f time and mailing materials, up to $150. I understand that I may

withdraw the school ’ s participation at any time . If I have an y questions about this research study I may contact Deborah Van Kummer at (512) 391 - 6551 or deborah.vankummer@sedl.org .

- . If I have an y concerns about the conduct of this study Ican contact the Institutional Review Board Ethical & Independent Review Services (E&I) b y phone at 1 - 800 - 472 - 3241 (toll - free) or email at subject@eandireview.com . Name authorized official: Title: Phone: Signature Alternate school contact for routine study administration issues: Title: Phone: