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

# Certification
by the 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,
A. Jay Meyerson, Chief Executive Officer, and I, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr., Chief Financial
Officer, of  Aames Financial Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
  The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December
  31, 2003 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of
  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

*     *     *





|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER   
|----------------------- | --------------------------
|                        |                           
|                        |                           
|/s/ A. Jay Meyerson     | /s/ Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr.
|A. Jay Meyerson         | Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr.    
|                        |                           
|February 13, 2004       | February 13, 2004
July 29, 1997

19196

#### State v. Alexander

Vacated
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,312
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,954
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     41,424
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,377
<PP&E>                                         115,784
<DEPRECIATION>                                  66,822
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 124,031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,255
<BONDS>                                         18,453
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              788
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,057
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,312
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   124,031
<SALES>                                        259,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               259,439
<CGS>                                          195,086
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  195,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,987
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,281
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,706
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     9.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     9.26
        

</TABLE>
# C_2019103EN.01003901.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — DeepMind Technologies v EUIPO (STREAMS)

(Case T-97/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark STREAMS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Previous EUIPO practice))

(2019/C 103/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DeepMind Technologies Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. St Quintin, Barrister, K. Gilbert and G. Lodge, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek and D. Walicka, and subsequently by V. Ruzek and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 (Case R 35/2017-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign STREAMS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders DeepMind Technologies Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DeepMind Technologies Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6839

MATTHEW DAVID ENDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GARY BROWN, Officer; THE BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT PRECINCT 12-DUNDALK LOCATED AT

THE INTERSECTION OF MERRIT BLVD & WISE AVENUE;

GARY DAVIS, Officer; MICHAEL DEPAULA, Officer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96-

3868-AMD)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 29, 1998

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew David Enders, Appellant Pro Se. John Edward Beverungen,

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Towson, Maryland; Jeffrey Grant Cook,

BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.

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. Enders v. Brown, No. CA-96-3868-AMD (D. Md. May 27, 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
21485

#### State v. Dela Cruz

Affirmed
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Dennis E. Bunday, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Williams Controls Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure control and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|Date: December 24, 2003 |  | /s/DENNIS E. BUNDAYDennis E. Bunday Chief Financial Officer
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
# C_2023045EN.01003501.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/35

---

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2022 — adidas International Trading and Others v Commission

(Case T-130/18) (1)

(2023/C 45/52)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---
Aug 2020

There were 10 surveillance inspections conducted at 10 different sites for a total of 

50 fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities 

when possible. The water temperatures continued to increase in response to the 

warm air temperatures. All sites with fish in the water remained Category 1 and were 

scheduled for monthly sampling. No cages were confirmed positive this month.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

September 2019 101 0 21612

October 2019 90 0 21702

November 2019 93 0 21795

December 2019 91 0 21886

January 2020 81 0 21967

February 2020 78 0 22045

March 2020 55 0 23000

April 2020 50 0 23050

May 2020 50 0 23100

June 2020 80 0 23180

July 2020 56 0 23236

August 2020 50 0 23286
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains unaudited summary information extracted from the
consolidated statement of financial position of Central Newspapers, Inc. as of
December 28, 1997 and the consolidated statements of income, shareholders'
equity and cash flows for the fiscal year then ended and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                           36924
<SECURITIES>                                     11524
<RECEIVABLES>                                    92666
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2959
<INVENTORY>                                      10320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                162106
<PP&E>                                          537134
<DEPRECIATION>                                  250451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  614311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            97367
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            18920
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         29997
<OTHER-SE>                                      352282
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    614311
<SALES>                                         716137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                716137
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   575100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2166
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1710
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 143189
<INCOME-TAX>                                     58797
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              81495
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     81495
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.08
        

</TABLE>
Order entered March 6, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 12 - 01500 - CV IN RE HEIDI AMOS, Relator O riginal Proceeding from the County Criminal Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MA10 - 68776 - F 

### O RDE R The State’s Motion for Extension to File Out

- of

- Time, Contemporaneously

- Tendered Response is GRANTED . The State’s Response to Application for Writ of Mandamus/Prohibition Pursuant to Order of the Fifth Court of Appeals is deemed timely filed.
/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE
District 1- Carol L. Maines District 2 - Richard L. Parent, Jr. District 3 - Roger A. Moody

July 8, 2014

Mr. Michael Martin

Essential Air Service Division, X-53

U.S. Department of Transportation .

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: DOT-OST-1997-2784

Dear Mr. Martin:

The County of Knox owns and operates the Knox County Regional Airport, Owls Head, Maine (RKD).

The three elected Knox County Commissioners voted (3-0) on July 8, 2014 to endorse and support Cape

Air's proposal to continue EAS services at our airport for four (4) more years, with their six (6)

summertime, round-trip, option.

The Commission hosted a public informational hearing on June 10, 2014. Cape Air presented their draft

proposals. Their proposal was posted on our website and the public was able to provide comments/input

through July 7, 2014.

The recurring (and only) complaint associated with Cape Air's past service has been the limited number

of available seats/flights during our peak summer months. Cape Air included the 'W6' option in direct

response to customer feed-back and Knox County's specific request.

The Commission understands the Cessna 402 does not meet the 15-or-more-passenger-seat standard

called for by the governing statutes, and that we are, in effect, waiving our right to a 1S-seat or larger

aircraft, for this four-year carrier-selection.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAS proposal. If. we can provide any further

information, please feel free to contact the Airport Manager, JeffNorthgraves at 594-4131 or via email

at jnorthgraves@knoxcountymaine.gov.

sinci,t/IL

Carol L. Maines, Chair

Knox County Commission

cc: Andrew Bonney, Hyannis Air Service, Inc.

Mr. John Guimond, Airport Manager, AUO

Larry Pritchett, Mayor, City of Rockland

JeffNorthgraves, Airport Manager, RKD
#### COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANK OF WARR ACRES et al., Appellants, v. Jack BEASLER aka Jack Beasley, Appellee.

No. 46800.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 19, 1974.

Howard Schmidt, by Jack R. Bard, Oklahoma City, for appellants.

Robert E. Walker, by Robert J. Unruh, Jr., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

LAVENDER, Justice:

Appellants as plaintiffs sued appellee to replevy a motor vehicle. Issuance of the *814writ was denied at a show cause hearing. Because defendant was allowed to retain possession of the chattel, plaintiffs then sought an order requiring defendant to furnish redelivery bond, which order was denied.

Appellant alleges in a petition in error that the trial judge certified for interlocutory appeal a question:

> “Is the defendant in a replevin action required to post a redelivery bond in compliance with 12 O.S.1577 at the termination of a show cause hearing in the defendants favor that allows him to retain possession of the personal property that ought to be replevied ?”

The petition in error will be treated as a petition for certiorari, which is the appropriate pleading under Civil Appeals Rule 1.51(b).

The interlocutory review contemplated by the statute 12 O.S.1971 § 952(b)(3) encompasses appellate review of interlocutory orders which affect a substantial part of the merits of the controversy. Appellants here can only be aggrieved by the order denying their motion to compel defendant to post a redelivery bond. They are not aggrieved by an order which affects a substantial part of the merits of the controversy.

Also, assuming, arguendo, that requirement of a redelivery bond by defendant would be in this circumstance appropriate, appellate review of an interlocutory order to that effect would not serve to “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation,” Civil Appeals Rule 1.50. Neither the Legislature nor the rules of this court provide for interlocutory review of the type order involved here.

Certiorari is denied. On motion by ap-pellees the petition in error, treated as a petition for certiorari, is dismissed and the cause remanded to the trial court with direction to proceed in the cause.

DAVISON, C. J., WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and IRWIN, BERRY, HODGES and SIMMS, JJ., concur.

BARNES, J., dissents.
AVS QPM# Revision

Quality Management AIR-ANM-030-F4 1

Svstem

Title: Domestic Change Worksheet Date: December 17, 2008

Record of Contacts

FDMS Docket No. FAA-iI!lltl·2010_·_03~7_9 _

___ •••__ ••••••••• _ •••L•••C•••• ""'.••.•••••••_••••••.••.•••..••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••. &&••••••a••.••.•• s&GZE •••••••••••••••••••. _z•••"..".."a".._."."."z ••'!

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA. etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date

ATA Mark Lop{"z 917109

Boeing Paul Richter 7/20109

•••••••••• ,••.•..••.•• L••&••••a•&•s•••••••.•• ,••,•.••. "g•••••••••••_ ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••_ ••• L_.. ••

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master List to Verify That This is the Correcl Revision Before Use
**Exhibit 10.31**

 

**New Hire Option Grant Authorization — Updated Appendix**

 

**Awards Granted Under the New Hire Plan***

 

TheCompany has made the following option grants under its New Hire Option GrantAuthorization Plan (the “New Hire Plan”). In 2004, the Company granted three non-executive officer employees atotal of 16,000 stock options with a grant price of $14.90, one non-executiveofficer employee a total of 200,000 options with a grant price of $15.71, fournon-executive officer employees a total of 26,500 options with a grant price of$16.72, 14 non-executive officer employees a total of 21,000 options with agrant price of $17.56, 4 non-executive officer employees a total of 60,000options with a grant price of $16.94, one non-executive officer employee 10,000options with a grant price of $16.12, and three non-executive officer employeesa total of 15,000 stock options with a grant price of $16.03.  In 2003, the Company granted sixteennon-executive officer employees a total of 97,000 stock options with a grantprice of $12.79 and one non-executive officer employee 75,000 options with agrant price of $15.99.  In 2002, theCompany granted six non-executive officer employees a total of 235,000 stockoptions with a grant price of $6.71.  In2001, the Company granted the President and Chief Operating Officer of theCompany, 300,000 stock options with a grant price of $9.62. This summary doesnot include grants made to individuals who are no longer with the Company andwhose options have been forfeited.

 

The2004 option grants with grant prices of $14.90 and $16.72 and all stock optionsgranted in 2001, 2002 and 2003 referenced above vest as follows:(i) twenty-five percent (25%) of the options become exercisable on thefirst anniversary of date of grant and (ii) the remaining seventy-five(75%) become exercisable pro rata over the following 3 year period, on amonthly basis, commencing on the first anniversary of the date of grant andending on the fourth anniversary of the date of grant; provided that, in no eventshall any option be exercisable following the expiration or termination of theoption.  The balance of the 2004 optiongrants vest on December 31, 2004, however, the right to sell the optionsaccrues only as follows: (i) one-third of the options shall become eligible forsale on the first anniversary of date of grant, (ii) one-third of the optionsshall become eligible for sale on the second anniversary of date of grant and(iii) the remaining one-third of the options shall become eligible for sale on thethird anniversary of date of grant.

 

----

*This Updated Appendix does not include information regarding grants made toindividuals who are no longer employees of the Company.

 

----
# C_2018311EN.01001302.xml

| 3.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/13

---

Action brought on 20 June 2018 — Intercept Pharma and Intercept Pharmaceuticals v EMA

(Case T-377/18)

(2018/C 311/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Intercept Pharma Ltd (Bristol, United Kingdom) and Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (New York, New York, Unites States) (represented by: L. Tsang, J. Mulryne, E. Amos and H. Kerr-Peterson, Solicitors and F. Campbell, Barrister)

Defendants: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision ASK-40399 communicated by the defendant to the applicants on 15 May 2018, to release some documentation under Regulation 1049/2001/EC; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision ASK-40399 communicated by the defendant to the applicants on 15 May 2018, to release some documentation under Regulation 1049/2001/EC; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicants legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicants legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law by concluding that the ‘court proceedings’ indent of Article 4.2 of Regulation 1049/2001/EC was not engaged in the present case, on the basis that the documentation was not a document ‘prepared for the purpose of court proceedings’. As a matter of law, the defendant should have concluded that the exemption was engaged. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law by concluding that the ‘court proceedings’ indent of Article 4.2 of Regulation 1049/2001/EC was not engaged in the present case, on the basis that the documentation was not a document ‘prepared for the purpose of court proceedings’. As a matter of law, the defendant should have concluded that the exemption was engaged.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging further or in the alternative that the only legally permissible outcome of a proper balancing exercise, under the ‘commercial interests’ indent of Article 4.2 of Regulation 1049/2001/EC, would have been a decision not to release the documentation, in light of: (i) the compelling weight of the applicants’ private interest in avoiding disclosure; and (ii) the merely vague and generic public interest in disclosure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging further or in the alternative that the only legally permissible outcome of a proper balancing exercise, under the ‘commercial interests’ indent of Article 4.2 of Regulation 1049/2001/EC, would have been a decision not to release the documentation, in light of: (i) the compelling weight of the applicants’ private interest in avoiding disclosure; and (ii) the merely vague and generic public interest in disclosure.

---