alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.2**

**WILLIAMM. COBB & ASSOCIATES, INC.**

WorldwidePetroleum Consultants

 
| 12770 Coit Road,  Suite 907 | (972) 385-0354            |
|----------------------------------|---------------------------|
| Dallas, Texas                    | Fax: (972) 788-5165       |
|                             | E-Mail: office@wmcobb.com |

 

February 21, 2008

 

Nexen Inc.

801 7thAvenue SW

Calgary,Alberta  T2P 3P7

Canada

 
| Attention: | Reserves Review  Committee of the |
|------------|-----------------------------------|
|       | Board of Directors of  Nexen Inc. |

 

The Board ofDirectors:

 

Wehereby consent to references to our firm relating to the evaluation and/oraudit of certain oil and gas properties of Nexen Inc. (the “Company”) containedin the section entitled “Basis of Reserves Estimates” within “Reserves,Production and Related Information” as set out in Part I, Items 1 &2 Business and Properties of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2007.

 

 
|   | Sincerely,                                   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |                                         |
|   | WILLIAM M.  COBB & ASSOCIATES, INC. |
|   |                                         |
|   |                                         |
|   |                                              |   |
|   | Frank J. Marek, P.E.                         |
|   | Senior Vice President                        |

 

FJM:jf

 

Dallas,Texas

February 21,2008

 

----
June 3, 2008

27538

#### Schmidt v. Real Estate Com'n

Affirmed
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



I, Jimmy S.M. Lee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended
September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. as of and for the periods presented in such Report on Form 10-K.



By:

/s/    JIMMY S.M. LEEJimmy S.M. LeeChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerDecember 14, 2004




I, Gary L.
Fischer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended September 30, 2004 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations
of Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. as of and for the periods presented in such Report on Form 10-K.



By:

/s/    GARY L. FISCHERGary L. FischerPresident, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDecember 14, 2004
#### STATE of Alaska, Appellant, v. Charles BUNDRANT, Appellee. STATE of Alaska, Appellant, v. Konrad S. URI et al., Appellee. STATE of Alaska, Appellant, v. Cory A. KALDESTAD, Appellee.

Nos. 2295, 2435 and 2444.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

March 26, 1976.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

ERWIN, Justice.

Appellees in cases # 2435 and 2444 have petitioned for rehearing, alleging there was no factual basis for the assertions made in the opinion herein. Appellees assert they did not join in the agreed statement of facts presented in case # 2295 and that there was no hearing in the trial court, so that most factual allegations in the opinion are disputed and without foundation.

Appellees apparently overlook those portions of the depositions of James Brooks,1 Burdett Lechner,2 Guy Powell,3 Peter Jackson4 and John McMullen,5 which they attached to their motion to dismiss. Additionally, the affidavits of John McMullen 6 and Larry Edfelt7 were filed in the case #2295, along with the stipulation of facts.

Court opinions in *Hjelle v.*Brooks8 and *State v. Wakefield Fisheries, Inc.,**9***which have been cited by all parties to this law suit, provide a historical factual background of undisputed facts to this long-running controversy.

Additionally, the 1970 Annual Report of the North Pacific Fisheries Commission on Crab Fisheries in the Eastern Bering Sea10 and publications by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game provide published 11 information which the court can rely on in reaching its decision.12

*839In any event, appellees have not been precluded from raising specific defenses based on matters not previously determined by the trial court.13

By Direction of the Court, It Is ORDERED :

The petition for rehearing is denied.

BOOCHEVER, C. J., and BURKE, J., did not participate in consideration of the petition for rehearing.

1

. R. 122-138 (Case #2444).

2

. R. 161-172 (Case #2444).

3

. R. 173-177 (Case #2444).

4

. R. 178-180 (Case #2444).

5

. R. 181-183 (Case #2444).

6

. R. 33-47.

7

. R. 48-52.

8

. 377 F.Supp. 430 (D.C.Alaska 1974).

9

. 495 P.2d 166 (Alaska 1973).

10

. *See*McMullen and Yoshihara, “King and Tanner Crab Fisheries of the United States in the Eastern Bering Sea, 1966-1970.” Int. No.Pac.Fish.Comm., 1970 Annual Report, p. 104-110.

11

. McMullen and Yoshihara, “The King and Tanner Crab Fishery of the Alaska Peninsula • — -Aleutian Islands Management Area, 1969-70,” Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Info. Leaf. No. 148; McMullen, Yoshihara and Geiger, “The King Crab Fisheries of the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands, 1970-1971,” Alaska Department of Fish and Game Info. Leaf. No. 157.

12

. *See also*Reardon, “Alaska’s King Crab Fishery,” *Alaska Magazine*(March, 1976).

13

. *See*footnote 108, 646 P.2d page 556, Opinion #1232.
* 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. 98-40474

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN ROJAS-JUAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CR-358-1

- - - - - - - - - -

October 22, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Martin Rojas-Juarez has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

We have independently reviewed counsel’s brief, the points raised

by Rojas in response to that brief, and the record and perceive

no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
19905

#### State v. Nungaray-Gonzalez

Affirmed
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00218-CR

Derek Wryan Wilson

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

§

From the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1290837D)

August 14, 2014

Opinion by Justice Walker

Concurrence by Justice Meier

(p)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Sue Walker___________________

 Justice Sue Walker
May 16, 2002

23947

#### Doe, In re

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF HEALTH  PROFESSIONALS,  INC.,  FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1997,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                         OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          39       
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,557
<INVENTORY>                                     87
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,422
<PP&E>                                       3,087 
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,064
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        94
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,569
<SALES>                                      4,251 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,260
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             202
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,142)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,142)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.24)

        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 96-10194

(Summary Calendar)

_______________

PRESTON ODELL STEPHENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LEE A JACKSON, Warden, Wackenhut

Correction Corporation; WACKENHUT

CORRECTION CORPORATION MEDICAL AND

CLASSIFICATION STAFF; WACKENHUT

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION; D HART,

Classification Member; MARY CLARK,

Medical Administrator; D MCCOMIS,

Assistant Warden; D BROWN, Major,

Wackenhut Correctional Corp,

Defendants - Appellees.

_______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:95-CV-883-A)

_______________________________________________

September 18, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Preston Odell Stephens, Texas inmate #633693, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights complaint. He raises the following
 

1 Stephens does not argue the viability of his medical-care claim, and

therefore, the issue is deemed abandoned on appeal. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.

3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994).

-2-

issues: 1) the district court erred by concluding that Stephens did

not comply with the order to reply to the answer with specific

facts; 2) the district court erred by concluding that the complaint

failed to state a claim because Stephens alleged an actual injury,

the injury to his right hand, from his placement in second-floor

housing;1 and 3) the district court erred by dismissing his

complaint without affording Stephens the opportunity to amend or

expand on his allegations. We have carefully reviewed the record

and appellate arguments. We detect no error in the district

court’s dismissal. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F. 3d 1427, 1432-34

(5th Cir. 1995) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
February 21, 2001

23073

#### Doe, In re

Affirmed
17729

#### State v. Fuentes

Affirmed
21321

#### State v. Taketa

Affirmed
### Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER People of M I v Da n ie l D an te Bu rc h DocketNo. 3228 1 4 LC No. 13 - 006304 - FC Amy Ronayne Krause Presiding Judge Ja n e 

### E. Ma r key Michae l J. Ke lly

Judges T h e Co u rt o rd e rs th at t h e mot io n fo r r eco n s ide ration is GRANTED, and this Court's opinion issued February 1 1, 2016, is h e re by VACA T E D . A new opinion is attached to this order.

A true copy ente r ed and certi fied by .J erome W. Z i mmer Jr., Chief Clerk, on 

# MAY 0 3 

# 2016 Da t e
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      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 Annual Report of Lapis Technologies, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Miron
      Markovitz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.




March
                31, 2008
            
            /s/
                Miron MarkovitzMiron
                      Markovitz
                    Chief
                      Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 639 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  House Calendar No. 96
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 639

                          [Report No. 114-457]

  Authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the 
  House of Representatives in the matter of United States, et al. v. 
                       Texas, et al., No. 15-674.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2016

  Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin submitted the following resolution; which was 
                   referred to the Committee on Rules

                             March 16, 2016

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the 
  House of Representatives in the matter of United States, et al. v. 
                       Texas, et al., No. 15-674.

    Resolved, That the Speaker is authorized to appear as amicus curiae 
on behalf of the House of Representatives in the Supreme Court in the 
matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15-674, and to 
file a brief in support of the position that the petitioners have acted 
in a manner that is not consistent with their duties under the 
Constitution and laws of the United States.
    Sec. 2.  The Speaker shall notify the House of Representatives of a 
decision to file one or more briefs as amicus curiae pursuant to this 
resolution.
    Sec. 3.  The Office of General Counsel of the House of 
Representatives, at the direction of the Speaker, shall represent the 
House in connection with the filing of any brief as amicus curiae 
pursuant to this resolution, including supervision of any outside 
counsel providing services to the Speaker on a pro bono basis for such 
purpose.
                                                  House Calendar No. 96

114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 639

                          [Report No. 114-457]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Authorizing the Speaker to appear as amicus curiae on behalf of the 
  House of Representatives in the matter of United States, et al. v. 
                       Texas, et al., No. 15-674.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 16, 2016

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

DEFERRAL ELECTION FORM 

ANALOGIC CORPORATION AMENDED AND RESTATED 

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK PLAN (THE “PLAN”) 
  

 

	   I.	Plan Year and Return Information. This deferral election applies only to the Plan Year shown below. We must receive your completed form by the Return Date or your deferral election will not be effective.


  

					
	Plan Year	 	CY2017	  	
	Return Date:	 	December 15, 2016	  	
	Return To:	 	 Jackie Lucas at Analogic

e-mail: jlucas@analogic.com
	  	

  

	   II.	Participant Name and Address 

  

					
	Name:	 	 	  	
	 Address:
  
	 	 	  	

  

	   III.	Annual Cash Retainer Deferral Election. Please defer my Annual Cash Retainer ($50,000 for CY2017) as shown below. The deferral percentage must be between 0% and 100%, in multiples of 10 (e.g., 10%, 20%,
30%, etc.). The total of the deferral percentages must equal either 0% or 100%. 

  

					
	 Percentage Deferred as

Deferred Stock Units
	    	    0%	  	
	Percentage Deferred into Cash Account	    	    0%	  	
	Total of above:	    	    0%	  	

  

	   IV.	Annual Share Retainer Deferral Election. Please defer the indicated portion of my Annual Share retainer into Deferred Stock Units as shown below. The deferral percentage must be between 0% and 100%, in multiples
of 10 (e.g., 10%, 20%, 30%, etc.). 

  

					
	 Percentage Deferred as

Deferred Stock Units
	    	    0%	  	

  

	   V.	Distribution Election. Please distribute the then-current value of my Deferred Stock Units and/or cash account for the current Plan Year when indicated below. Mark only one/select date as applicable.


  

					
	☐	 	 Upon termination of my service to
Analogic as a member
 of the Board of Directors.
	  	
	☐    Date:	 	 On the date shown (must be at least one
year from the
 date of your election).
	  	

  

	VI.	Participant Signature and Date. I acknowledge that my deferral election is subject to the Plan and the Plan Prospectus, copies of which have been provided to me. Deferral elections that are contrary to the Plan
or that are received after the Return Date will not be effective. Capitalized terms that are not defined in this form will have the definitions given to them in the Plan. 


 

					
	  

Signature:
  
	  	  

Date:
  
	  	

 2016 11 30 – For CY2017
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 12
- 00022
- CV
WILLIE EDWARD DAVIS , Appellant v. CHRIS KIRK, Appellee

From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 11
- 001773
- CV
- 361

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Willie Edward Davis, a prison inmate, appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against Chris Kirk. By letter dated February 23, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified Davis that the clerk’s record had not been filed because he had either failed to pay or make arrangement to pay the clerk’ s fee for preparation of the clerk’s record. The Clerk also warned Davis that, unless he paid or made arrangement to pay the clerk’s fee for preparation of the clerk’s record and notify the Court of the actions taken within 21 days from the date of the le tter, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution.
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(b). More than 21 days have passed, and Davis has not madeDavis v. Kirk Page 2

arrangement to pay the clerk’s fee for preparation of the clerk’s record and has not
notified the Court of the act ions taken. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Id

. Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 12.1(b); Appendix to T EX

. R. A PP

. P ., Order Regarding Fe es (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). S ee also T EX

. R.
A PP

. P . 5; 10 TH T EX

. A PP

. (W ACO ) L OC

. R. 5; T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 51.207(b); § 51.941(a) (West 2005); and § 51.208 (West Supp. 2011). Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and ord er the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 2. The write

- off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the fees owed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 28 , 2012 [CV06]
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 614 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 614

     Honoring the Denver Broncos on their victory in Super Bowl 50.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2016

 Mr. Perlmutter (for himself, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Polis, Mr. Tipton, Mr. 
Buck, Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. Coffman) submitted the following resolution; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Honoring the Denver Broncos on their victory in Super Bowl 50.

Whereas, on February 7, 2016, the Denver Broncos beat the Carolina Panthers by a 
        score of 24 to 10 becoming the National Football League's (NFL) Super 
        Bowl 50 Champions at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, California;
Whereas the victory by the Denver Broncos was the culmination of a regular 
        season with 12 wins and 4 losses and a series of dominating playoff 
        performances;
Whereas the Denver Broncos Defense allowed only 4 touchdowns in the playoffs 
        against the first, third, and fourth ranked offenses;
Whereas the Super Bowl 50 victory is the third Super Bowl Championship for the 
        Denver Broncos;
Whereas the Broncos appeared in their NFL record-tying eighth Super Bowl;
Whereas Peyton Manning became the oldest Super Bowl-winning quarterback in NFL 
        history, surpassing the Denver Broncos' John Elway;
Whereas defensive outside linebacker Von Miller recorded 6 tackles, 2\1/2\ 
        sacks, 2 quarterback hits, a pass defended, and 2 forced fumbles leading 
        the Denver Broncos to their third Super Bowl victory and earning the 
        ``Super Bowl Most Valuable Player'' award;
Whereas Head Coach Gary Kubiak, Coordinators Wade Phillips and Rick Dennison, 
        and the staff of the Denver Broncos created successful game plans 
        throughout the 2015 season;
Whereas General Manager John Elway, VP Joe Ellis, and the entire Broncos front 
        office spent the off season building and supporting the championship 
        team;
Whereas Broncos owner Pat Bowlen and the entire Bowlen family have built a team 
        and contributed immensely to the Colorado community; and
Whereas the Super Bowl Champion Denver Broncos are the pride of fans all over 
        the State of Colorado, the Rocky Mountain West, and the United States: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the Denver 
Broncos on their Super Bowl 50 victory.
                                 <all>
```