alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1

                 [GRAY CARY WARE & FREIDENRICH LLP LETTERHEAD]

September 18, 2000

Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549

    RE:  ZORAN CORPORATION
       REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-4

Ladies and Gentlemen:

    This opinion is furnished to you in connection with a Registration Statement
on Form S-4 (the "Registration Statement") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Commission") under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, for the registration of 2,693,615 shares of Common Stock (the "Common
Stock"), $.001 par value per share, of Zoran Corporation (the "Company").

    We have acted as counsel for the Company in connection with the issuance of
the shares of Common Stock pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement"), dated as of August 23, 2000, by and among the Company,
Nogatech, Inc., and Zoom Acquisition Corporation. We have examined signed copies
of the Registration Statement and all exhibits thereto (including, but not
limited to, the Merger Agreement), all as filed with the Commission. We also
have examined and relied upon the original or copies of minutes of meetings of
the stockholders and Board of Directors of the Company, a certificate of the
transfer agent for the Common Stock, the Restated Certificate of Incorporation
and the Amended Bylaws of the Company and such other documents as we have deemed
material to the opinion set forth below.

    Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the shares of Common
Stock to be issued pursuant to the Merger Agreement are duly authorized by the
Company and, when issued in accordance with the terms of the Merger Agreement,
will be validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

    We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and to the use of our name wherever it appears in the
Registration Statement, as originally filed or as amended or supplemented.

    This opinion is to be used only in connection with the issuance of the
Common Stock while the Registration Statement is in effect.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                          /s/ GRAY CARY WARE & FREIDENRICH LLP

                                          GRAY CARY WARE & FREIDENRICH LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the body of the accompanying Form 10-Q
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     POUNDS STERLING
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.6448
<CASH>                                         106,802
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  74,768
<ALLOWANCES>                                   6,292
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         1,868,020
<DEPRECIATION>                                 347,693
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,350,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        1,078,147
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    49,607
<COMMON>                                       92,757
<OTHER-SE>                                     834,910
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,350,881
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               90,930
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  37,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             30,314
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (93,819)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   64
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (93,883)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (93,883)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00048-CR

The STATE of Texas,

Appellant

v.

Christopher Glen ADAMS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR120324

Honorable Spencer W. Brown, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this matter is ABATED and 

REMANDED to the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4. This court’s Corrected Order, dated 

November 4, 2013, and the submission date set therein, is hereby WITHDRAWN.

We further direct the Honorable Spencer W. Brown, judge of the County Court at Law, 

Kerr County, Texas, to execute more specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, consistent 

with this opinion, as required by Cullen and Elias. Specifically, the trial court must make “findings 

of fact with greater specificity,” and any related conclusions of law, as to the following:

(1) the impact of the injuries sustained by Mr. Rice and the blood on his face 

and whether any such injuries supported Trooper Salaz’s probable cause to 

arrest Adams for driving while intoxicated;

(2) the extent of Trooper Salaz’s conversation with Adams, prior to Adams 

being transported back to the scene of the accident, wherein Adams 

admitted he was the driver of the vehicle and that he had been drinking, and 

whether such conversation supported a custodial arrest or an investigatory 

detention; and

(3) whether Trooper Salaz’s transporting Adams from the accident scene to the 

fire station was part of an investigatory detention, what transpired at the fire 

station, what factors were utilized in Trooper Salaz’s decision to arrest 
04-13-00048-CR

Adams for driving while intoxicated, and whether such information 

amounted to probable cause to arrest Adams for driving while intoxicated.

We also direct the trial court to file its findings and conclusions with the clerk of this court, 

via a supplemental clerk’s record, on or before July 25, 2014. Upon filing of the supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the findings and conclusions, the appeal will be reinstated and a new 

submission date will be set.

SIGNED June 25, 2014.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

- 2 -
#### Theodoer WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-309.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 11, 1973.

*586Robert P. Miller, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court on a Rule Nisi dated September 17, 1973 issued to the Honorable Robert P. Miller, Public Defender of Daytona Beach, Florida, directing him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of this Court for his failure to prosecute this appeal in accordance with his professional responsibilities as attorney for the appellant in accordance with Florida Appellate Rules. The said Robert P. Miller has this date appeared before the Court and given an explanation as to why this appeal has not been properly prosecuted as required by law which explanation we find to be insufficient and without merit.

It is therefore the judgment of this Court that the said Robert P. Miller be and he is hereby adjudged to be in contempt of this Court for his failure in the premises and he is hereby publicly reprimanded for his failure to discharge the duties and requirements of his employment as attorney for appellant. The said Robert P. Miller is hereby directed to prosecute this appeal to a conclusion on the merits without any further delay pursuant to the Florida Appellate Rules.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR, WIG-GINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur. (Sitting en banc).
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3015

To designate the visitor center at the Big Thicket National Preserve as

the ‘‘Ralph W. Yarborough Visitor Center’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1993

Mr. WILSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To designate the visitor center at the Big Thicket National

Preserve as the ‘‘Ralph W. Yarborough Visitor Center’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the visitor center at the Big Thicket National Pre4 serve located off U.S. Route 69 on FM 420 north of

5 Kountze, Texas, shall be known and designated as the

6 ‘‘Ralph W. Yarborough Visitor Center’’.

Æ
<PAGE> 105

                                                         Exhibit 23.2








                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-3 Number 333-100345 and No. 333-110318) of American
General Finance Corporation and in the related Prospectus of our
report dated January 31, 2002, with respect to the consolidated
statements of income, shareholder's equity, cash flows, and
comprehensive income and related schedule of American General Finance
Corporation and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2001
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
31, 2003.


                                            /s/  Ernst & Young LLP


Indianapolis, Indiana
March 9, 2004
# Table 2

# Sheet2

# Sheet3
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT

TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 10-K Report), that:

(1) the 10-K Report fully complies with the
requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the
10-K Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

The undersigned
have executed this Certification effective as April 20, 2009.



/s/ Russell HallRussell HallChief Executive Officer/s/ Dennis NelsonDennis Nelson Chief Financial Officer &
Treasurer


A signed original of this Certification has been provided to Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and will be
retained by Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





I, David A. Moylan, certify that:



|I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dataram Corporation (the “registrant”);
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|1)                                                                                        
|                                                                                          
|2)                                                                                        
|                                                                                          
|3)                                                                                        
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|4)                                                                                        
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          



| | By: | /s/ David A.
    Moylan | 
| | --- | ----------------------- | 
| |     | David A. Moylan         | 
| |     | Chief Executive Officer | 
| |     | August 7, 2015          |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7541
JOHN MCKINNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JESSIE PERLADO; ROBERT O. CARMICHAEL; JUDITH M. HAAS; SIMMS HUNTER RENTZ; PARKER EVATT, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-95-3433-2-22-AJ) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals 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. McKinney v. Perlado , No. CA-95-3433-2-22-AJ (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 1996).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
# C_2013235EN.01000101.xml

| 14.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6885 — SDNV/Germanischer Lloyd)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 235/01

On 15 July 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6885. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6885. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Douglas P. FAULK v. POWER RIG DRILLING CO., Lamb Industries, Inc., the Northern Assurance Co. of Am., Odell Vinson Contractors, Employers Fire Ins. Co.

No. 60572.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 26, 1977.

In re: Lamb Industries, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Allen, 348 So.2d 219.

Dismissed.
AFS-14-377-E

15 August, 2014

 Exemption No. 9775C

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-0994

Mr. Chuck Horgan

Director of Maintenance

Center for Emergency Medicine of Western Pennsylvania, Inc.

STAT MedEvac

10 Allegheny County Airport

West Mifflin, PA 15122

Dear Mr. Horgan:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9775, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated 7 July, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of the Center for Emergency Medicine, d/b/a STAT MedEvac (STAT) for an

exemption from §§ 91.411(b) and 91.413(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

(14 CFR). The Exemption, if granted, would allow STAT to perform air traffic control (ATC) 

transponder tests and inspections and altimeter systems and altimeter reporting equipment 

tests and inspections for its part 135 aircraft maintained under an approved aircraft inspection

program (AAIP).

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to STAT.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9775, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant Center for Emergency Medicine, d/b/a STAT 

MedEvac an exemption extension to perform Air Traffic Control (ATC) transponder tests 

and inspections and altimeter systems and altimeter reporting equipment tests and inspections 

for its part 135 aircraft maintained under an approved aircraft inspection program (AAIP).

Subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. All ATC transponder tests and inspections and all altimeter reporting equipment tests 

and inspections must be conducted under STAT’s part 135 AAIP.

2. All tests and inspections must be recorded in the aircraft’s maintenance log by the 

person performing each inspection and test. This record must identify the person 

performing the inspection, the date of the inspection, and this exemption number.

3. All records of these tests and inspections also must be kept in STAT’s maintenance 

recording system for its part 135 aircraft.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9775, as amended, to 

October 31, 2016, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Leslie Smith

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          16,750
<SECURITIES>                                       359
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,215
<PP&E>                                           2,412
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,766
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,961)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    66,484
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,571
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,960
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,285
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,172)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       305
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,477)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,477)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)


</TABLE>