alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

      In connection with the quarterly report of DataMetrics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel
Bertram, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Rafik Moursalien, the
Controller of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:


      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and 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.

 DATAMETRICS CORPORATION

 By: Daniel Bertram
     ----------------------------
     Daniel Bertram, CEO

 Dated: April 11, 2005


 By: Rafik Moursalien
     ----------------------------
     Rafik Moursalien, Controller

 Dated:   April 11, 2005

                                       17
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Cubic Corporation (the “Corporation”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, WalterJ. Zable, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

 

 
| /s/  W. J. Zable                             |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| W.  J. Zable                                      |   |
| Chairman,  President, and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                              |   |
| Date: May 5, 2010                            |   |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40372

Conference Calendar

 

BERNARD VINCENT MONTGOMERY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CV-2-MAC-WCR 

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bernard Vincent Montgomery, federal inmate #53653-146,

appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition. Montgomery asserts that his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

challenged the manner in which his sentence was being executed

and that the district court erred by construing the petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He contends that the application of the

Sentencing Guidelines in the determination of his sentence

constituted a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 04-40372

-2-

Section 2255, 28 U.S.C., is used to collaterally attack a

federal conviction and sentence based on errors that occurred at

trial or sentencing. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th

Cir. 2001). Section 2241, 28 U.S.C., is used generally to

challenge the manner in which a sentence is executed. Jeffers,

253 F.3d at 830. Montgomery’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

challenged the use of the Sentencing Guidelines, an alleged error

that occurred at sentencing, and was construed properly under 28

U.S.C. § 2255. See Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830. 

The district court did not err in concluding that

Montgomery’s petition did not meet the requirements of the 28

U.S.C. § 2255 savings clause. See Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830-31. 

Montgomery has not shown that his claims were “‘based on a

retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes

that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense.’” 

Id. at 830 (citation omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
      (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual
report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation;(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 /s/ William R. AbbottWilliam R. AbbottChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
O'CHARLEY'S INC.
EXHIBIT 11

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
(in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               Year Ended
                                                           --------------------------------------------------
                                                           December 29,        December 31,      December 25,
                                                                   1996                1995              1994
                                                           ------------        ------------      ------------
<S>                                                        <C>                 <C>               <C>
Net earnings (loss) as reported                                  (1,147)             10,877             5,229

Adjustments:
  Pro forma income tax expense(1)                                   --                 (286)             (256)
                                                           ------------        ------------      ------------
Net earnings (pro forma for 1995 and 1994)                       (1,147)             10,591             4,973
                                                           ============        ============      ============
Weighted average shares outstanding                               8,390               8,438             8,137
                                                           ============        ============      ============
Earnings per common share (pro forma for 1995 and 1994)    $      (0.14)       $       1.26      $       0.61
                                                           ============        ============      ============

</TABLE>
(1) Pro forma income tax adjustment to reflect additional income tax expense
    had Shoex, Inc. been subject to income taxes.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leonard D. POURCIAU.

No. 61323.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1978.

In re: Leonard D. Pourciau, applying for supervisory writ of review. Parish of E. Baton Rouge.

Denied.

TATE, J.,

concurs. The accused has a right to a preliminary examination, if he requests it.

CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., are of the opinion a preliminary examination should be ordered forthwith.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          36,123
<SECURITIES>                                     5,995
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (477)
<INVENTORY>                                     27,214
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,544
<PP&E>                                           4,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 101,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,951
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,799
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   101,686
<SALES>                                        116,213
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,213
<CGS>                                           70,769
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,823<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,020
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,173
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.710<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.700
<FN>
<F1>INTEREST INCOME NET OF INTEREST EXPENSE
<F2>BASIC EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
012 3051

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of

A & S PHARMACEUTICAL CORP., 

a corporation.

DOCKET NO. C-4036

COMPLAINT

The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that A & S Pharmaceutical

Corporation ("respondent") has violated the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and it

appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges:

1. Respondent is a Connecticut corporation with its principal office or place of business at 480

Barnum Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06608.

2. Respondent has manufactured, labeled, offered for sale, sold, and distributed aspirin tablets to

the public, including but not limited to private label aspirin brands. 

3. The acts and practices of respondent alleged in this complaint have been in or affecting

commerce, as "commerce" is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

4. Respondent has disseminated or has caused to be disseminated packaging and labeling for

certain of its aspirin products, including but not necessarily limited to the attached Exhibits A through G. 

The packaging and labeling contain the following statements or depictions:

A. Food Lion Aspirin Tablets, Exhibit A

“DISTRIBUTED BY FOOD LION, INC. . . .

Made in U.S.A.”

B. Price Chopper Coated Aspirin Tablets, Exhibit B

“Made in U.S.A. . . . 

DISTRIBUTED BY THE

PRICE CHOPPER, INC. . . .”
Page 2 of 3

C. Berkley & Jensen Aspirin, Exhibit C

“DISTRIBUTED BY

 BJWC . . .

Made in U.S.A.”

D. FormuCare Aspirin Tablets, Exhibit D

“Made in U.S.A.

Mfd. for Amway Corp.”

E. AAFES Aspirin, Exhibit E

“Manufactured in the U.S.A. for:

Army & Air Force Exchange Service”

F. Western Family Aspirin, Exhibit F

“Proudly Distributed By: WESTERN FAMILY FOODS, INC. . . .

.”

G. Fred’s Aspirin, Exhibit G

“DISTRIBUTED BY: FRED’S, INC. . . .

Made in U.S.A.” 

5. Through the means described in Paragraph 4, respondent has represented, expressly or by

implication, that certain of its aspirin products are made in the United States, i.e., that all, or virtually all,

of the ingredients of such products are made in the United States, and that all, or virtually all, of the

labor in manufacturing such products is performed in the United States.

6. In truth and in fact, a significant portion of the ingredients of certain of respondent’s aspirin

products is, or has been, of foreign origin. The active ingredient, bulk aspirin compound, that

respondent processed into aspirin tablets is or was made outside the United States. Therefore, the

representation set forth in Paragraph 5 was, and is, false or misleading.

MADE IN

U.S.A.
Page 3 of 3

7. The acts and practices of respondent as alleged in this complaint constitute unfair or deceptive

acts or practices, and the making of false advertisements, in or affecting commerce in violation of

Sections 5(a) and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 52.

THEREFORE, the Federal Trade Commission this nineteenth day of February 2002, has

issued this complaint against respondent.

By the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

SEAL:
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A0 42 9 . DECK PRO, I NC. v . J OY RENEE RUCKS.

In t h i s ci v i l act i o n , t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered a fi n al ju dg m en t i n fav o r o f p l ai n t i ff
J o y R u c k s o n h er cl ai m fo r b reach o f co n t ract o n No vem b er 1 3 , 2 01 9

. Defen d a n t Deck Pro , In c. fi l ed a n o t i ce o f ap p eal o n Decem b er 1 6 , 2 01 9

. W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n. A n o t i ce o f ap p eal m

u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry o f t h e ju d g m en t o r t ri al

co u rt o rd er s o u g h t t o b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e p ro p er an d t im el y fi l i n g

o f a n o t ice o f ap p eal i s an ab so l ut e req u i rem en t t o co n fer ap p el l at e ju ri s d i ct i on o n t h i s Co u rt

. Per l ma n v. Per l ma n , 3 1 8 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 1, 7 3 9 (4 ) (7 3 4 SE2 d 5 6 0 ) (2 0 1 2 ). Deck
Pro ’ s n o t i ce o f ap p eal was u n t i m el y fi l ed 33 d ay s aft er en t ry o f t h e o rd er i t s eek s t o ap p eal

. 1 Co n seq u en t l y , we l ack j ur isdic tion ove r th i s u n t i m el y ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

.

1 Deck Pro ’ s as s ert i o n i n i t s n o t i ce o f ap p eal th at th e t h i rt i et h d ay aft e r No v em b er 1 3 , 2 0 1 9 , fel l o n Sat urd ay , Decem b er 1 4 , 2 0 1 9 , i s m i s p l aced

. Th e t h i rt i et h d ay fel l o n Fri d ay , Decem

b er 1 3 , 2 0 1 9. See OCGA § 1 -3 -1 (d ) (3 ). April 19, 2021

04/19/2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                         <C>         <C>         <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           FEB-07-1998 FEB-01-1997 FEB-07-1998
<PERIOD-END>                APR-26-1997 FEB-01-1997 FEB-07-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS       12-MOS      12-MOS
<CASH>                            1,155       5,226       1,176
<SECURITIES>                      8,662      16,697      14,117
<RECEIVABLES>                    14,497      13,760      53,041
<ALLOWANCES>                        403         382         291
<INVENTORY>                      18,120      19,280      18,044
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 54,331      63,685      94,406
<PP&E>                          231,050     227,443     242,367
<DEPRECIATION>                  102,036      96,681     117,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  233,674     246,720     228,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            42,866      50,847      47,442
<BONDS>                               0           0           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0           0           0
<PREFERRED>                           0           0           0
<COMMON>                          6,913       6,896       6,999
<OTHER-SE>                      128,795     132,629      95,093
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    233,674     246,720     228,761
<SALES>                          70,174     467,034     366,701
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 70,174     467,034     366,701
<CGS>                            12,685     110,013      57,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    71,618     446,662     338,503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0           0           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0           0           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  830       4,278       4,470
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (3,827)     22,799      20,897
<INCOME-TAX>                      1,416       8,436       8,184
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (2,411)     14,363      12,713
<DISCONTINUED>                        0           0           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0           0           0
<CHANGES>                             0           0           0
<NET-INCOME>                     (2,411)     14,363      12,713
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (0.21)       1.07        1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (0.21)       1.06        1.07
        







<PAGE>

</TABLE>
February 27, 2001

Office of the Chief Accountant
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549



Dear Sir/Madam:

We have read the first paragraph of Item 4 included in the Form 8-K dated February 27, 2001 of Docucon, Incorporated to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and are in agreement with the statements contained therein.

Very truly yours,

/S/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP





Copy to:
  Robert W. Schwartz
  President and Chief Executive Officer
  Docucon, Incorporated
**EXHIBIT23**

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of DirectorsCascade Microtech, Inc.:

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-121964)on Form S-8 of Cascade Microtech, Inc. of our report dated March 16,2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Cascade Microtech,Inc. as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, redeemable stock, shareholders’ equity andcomprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2006, and the related financial statementschedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, whichreports appear in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K ofCascade Microtech, Inc.

Our report refersto Cascade Microtech, Inc.’s adoption of Financial Accounting StandardsNo. 123 (revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment*,effective January 1, 2006.

 

/s/KPMG LLPPortland, OregonMarch 16, 2007

 

----
Table of Contents


Exhibit 13.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Compañía de Telecomunicaciones de Chile S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Diego Martínez-Caro De la Concha-Castañeda, Chief Controller Officer of the Company certify that to the best of my knowledge:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

Date: May 15, 2006

/s/ Diego Martínez-Caro De la Concha-CastañedaDiego Martínez-Caro De la Concha-CastañedaManagement Control and Chief Accounting Officer


25
Exhibit 10.27**Amendment to Stock Option Agreement and Notice**     ThisAmendment to Stock Option Agreement is made on the 27th day of December, 2006 by andbetween Cyberonics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Stanley Appel, M.D.(“Optionee”).     **Whereas**, the Company and Optionee entered into a Stock Option Agreement having a grant date ofDecember 12, 1996, which agreement includes a Notice of Stock Option Grant (collectively, the“Agreement”); and     **Whereas**, the Company and Optionee now desire to amend the Agreement to extend the period forOptionee to exercise the option granted under the Agreement to December 31, 2006;     **Now, Therefore**, for a good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which ishereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:     1. The paragraph entitled, “Termination Period,” under “Notice of Stock Option Grant” isdeleted in its entirety, and the following is substituted therefor: “The Option may be exercisedon or prior to December 31, 2006.”     2. Except as expressly amended herein, the terms of the Agreement remain unchanged.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this Amendment voluntarily and oftheir own free will.       OPTIONEE     CYBERONICS, INC.       /s/Stanley Appel   By:  /s/ John A. Riccardi       Stanley Appel, M.D.     John A. Riccardi      Chief Financial Officer