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

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS

ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Quarterly
Report), of Southern California Edison Company (the Company), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies, to the best of his knowledge,
that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 8 , 2006



/s/    ALAN J. FOHRERAlan J. Fohrer Chief Executive Officer Southern California Edison Company/s/    THOMAS M. NOONANThomas M. Noonan Chief Financial Officer Southern California Edison Company


This statement accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement 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.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD., DBA GWEE,

Appellant

v.

APPLE INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2022-2257, 2022-2258, 2022-2259, 2022-2260

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-

00470, IPR2021-00471, IPR2021-00472, IPR2021-00473. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, SCHALL, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. 

PROST, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

Apple Inc. petitioned for inter partes review of claims 

1–10 and 16–19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,259,020 (“the ’020 

patent”), claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12, 14–17, and 19 of U.S. Patent 

No. 10,259,021 (“the ’021 patent”), claims 1–5 and 7–13 of 

U.S. Patent No. 10,562,077 (“the ’077 patent”), and claims 

1–5 and 7–13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,589,320 (“the ’320 patent”). In four final written decisions, the Patent Trial and 

Case: 22-2257 Document: 57 Page: 1 Filed: 04/11/2024
2 GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. 

Appeal Board (“Board”) determined that the challenged 

claims were unpatentable over the asserted prior art. Apple Inc. v. GUI Glob. Prods., Ltd., No. IPR2021-00470, 2022 

WL 3331044 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2022); Apple Inc. v. GUI 

Glob. Prods., Ltd., No. IPR2021-00471, 2022 WL 2960347 

(P.T.A.B. July 26, 2022); Apple Inc. v. GUI Glob. Prods., 

Ltd., No. IPR2021-00472, 2022 WL 2959606 (P.T.A.B. July 

26, 2022); Apple Inc. v. GUI Glob. Prods., Ltd., No. 

IPR2021-00473, 2022 WL 3219668 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2022). 

GUI Global Products, Ltd. (“Gwee”) timely appealed each 

final written decision, and we have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 

In a decision issued today in consolidated companion 

appeals, we affirmed the Board’s determination that all 

claims of the ’020, ’021, ’077, and ’320 patents were unpatentable. GUI Glob. Prods., Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 

Nos. 22-2156, 22-2157, 22-2158, 22-2159. Gwee’s appeals 

here are moot in light of that decision. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. 

TQ Delta, LLC, 928 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

These appeals are dismissed as moot in light of our affirmance in GUI Global Products, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Nos. 22-2156, 22-2157, 22-2158, 22-2159. 

 

April 11, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 22-2257 Document: 57 Page: 2 Filed: 04/11/2024
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 508 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the child 

tax credit and to allow for adjustments for inflation with respect to 

the child tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 26, 2011 

Mr. POSEY (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. YOUNG of 

Alaska, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Mr. BARTLETT) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the child tax credit and to allow for adjustments for inflation with respect to the child tax credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Tax Credit Pres5 ervation Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS OF CHILD TAX CREDIT. 

7 (a) REPEAL OF SUNSET.—Title IX of the Economic 

8 Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relatVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H508.IH H508

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 508 IH

1 ing to sunset of provisions of such Act) shall not apply 

2 to— 

3 (1) the amendments made by section 201 of 

4 such Act, and 

5 (2) any amendments made to section 24 of the 

6 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 which are enacted 

7 after the date of the enactment of such Act. 

8 (b) ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION.—Section 24 of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to the child 

10 tax credit) is amended by adding at the end the following 

11 new subsection: 

12 ‘‘(g) ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION.— 

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a taxable 

14 year beginning after December 31, 2010, the dollar 

15 amounts in subsection (a) and (b)(2) shall be in16 creased by an amount equal to— 

17 ‘‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

18 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter19 mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar 

20 year in which the taxable year begins, deter21 mined by substituting ‘calendar year 2001’ for 

22 ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) 

23 thereof. 

24 ‘‘(2) ROUNDING RULE.—If a dollar amount in 

25 subsection (a) or (b)(2), as increased under paraVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:34 Feb 02, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H508.IH H508

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 508 IH

1 graph (1), is not a multiple of $50, such amount 

2 shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $50.’’. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

5 December 31, 2010. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL

FURNACES AND BOILERS

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT ANALYTICAL TOOLS:

Filename Description

LCC Spreadsheets

LCC Main Spreadsheets'

LCC_GB.xls Generates LCC results for Gas Boilers. (Ch. 7 & 8)

LCC_MHF.xls Generates LCC results for Mobile Home Furnaces (Ch. 7 & 8 )

LCC_NWGF.xls Generates LCC results for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces (Ch. 7 & 8 )

LCC_OB.xls Generates LCC results for Oil Boilers. (Ch. 7 & 8)

LCC_OF.xls Generates LCC results for Oil Furnaces. (Ch. 7 & 8)

LCC_WGF.xls Generates LCC results for Weatherized Gas Furnaces . (Ch. 7 & 8)

Subgroup Analysis for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces

LCC_NWGF_LowIncome.xls Generates LCC low income subgroup results for NWGF (Ch. 11 )

LCC_NWGF_Senior.xls Generates LCC senior subgroup results for NWGF (Ch. 11 )

LCC Regional Spreadsheets (5000 HDD & 6000 HDD) for Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces'

LCC_NWGF_GT5000HDD. xls Generates LCC north regional subgroup results (HDD5000) (Ch. 11)

LCC_NWGF_LT5000HDD. xls Generates LCC south regional subgroup results (HDD5000) (Ch. 11)

LCC_NWGF_GT6000HDD. xls Generates LCC north regional subgroup results (HDD6000) (Ch. 11)

LCC_NWGF_LT6000HDD. xls Generates LCC south regional subgroup results (HDD5000) (Ch. 11)

NIA Spreadsheets

NIA(Main).xls2 Generates NPV results (Ch. 10)

NIA(Main)_rebound.xls2 Generates NES results (Ch. 10)

NIA(Regional)_HDD5000.xls Generates regional NPV results (HDD5000) (Ch. 10)

NIA(Regional)_HDD5000_rebound. xls Generates regional NES results (HDD5000) (Ch. 10)

NIA(Regional)_HDD6000.xls Generates regional NPV results (HDD6000) (Ch. 10)

NIA(Regional)_HDD6000_rebound. xls Generates regional NES results (HDD6000) (Ch. 10)

Other Analytical Tools

EngineeringSpreadsheet. xls Generates Rebuttable Payback Results (Ch. 6)

FB_EmploymentSummary . xls Summary of Employment Analysis Results (Ch. 14)

Util_&_Envt_Results.xls Summary of Utility and Environmental Analysis Results (Ch. 13 & EIA

Report)

GRIM Spreadsheet Used to generate results for Manufacturer Impact Analysis (Ch. 12)

Furnace Model Database Used to model furnace energy use and generate most common furnace

characteristics. (Ch. 7)

'LCC Main and Regional Spreadsheets are also used to generate inputs for the NIA analysis.

2NIA Main spreadsheets are also used to generate results for Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA Report).

1
United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 92-2739.

Summary Calendar.

Larry Joe MOORE, and Carolyn Jean Moore, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

FDIC, as Receiver for Huntsville National Bank, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

June 15, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs sued for wrongful foreclosure on their property. The district court granted

summary judgment for the defendants. The brief filed by plaintiffs on this appeal contains only

conclusions without reference to the record. No issues are acceptably presented in accord with the

rules. The appeal is dismissed.

The reasonsfor the district court'ssummary judgment were stated in open court, but nothing

of this ruling is brought forward in the record. That record stands 81/2 inches high. Plaintiffs' brief

specifies no place in the record and identifies no proof to support statements to the effect that the

foreclosure was made without notice to the plaintiffs and despite the stay of a bankruptcy court.

Defendants have answered specifically with reference to contrary summary judgment evidence in the

record.

The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require references to the record to support

statements of fact. R. 28(a)(4), R. 28(e). The Fifth Circuit's Local Rule 28.2.3 states:

Every assertion in briefs regarding matter in the record shall be supported by a reference to

the page number of the original record where the matter relied upon is to be found.

This dismissalwill be reconsidered if, withmotion for rehearing filed within 14 days, plaintiffs

support the motion with a succinct statement of any material issue of fact raised by the summary

judgment record, identifying the supporting evidence by page reference and also by reference to the
contrary evidence cited by defendants' briefs (with page numbers) and an explanation of why the

summary judgment was unwarranted in that respect.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
Kracon Aircraft was established in 1972 and is one of the oldest

established paint shops in Northern California.

 Kracon is licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration and our

FAA repair station number is NU3R723L.

The founders of Kracon Aircraft, Edwin Krass (Kra) and Robert Coon (Con), have extensive experience in the

refinishing business, starting with military aircraft. In 1972, they established their own painting business

concentrating on private aircraft. Kracon Aircraft’s manager, Terry O. Wingfield, has been with the company

since 1984 and is familiar with all aspects of aircraft refinishing.

Fully Licensed and Insured

In a recent issue of PROFESSIONAL PILOT Magazine, only three paint

shops nationwide were mentioned and Kracon was one of the three.

Kracon Aircraft is known for professional work, with attention to detail, while maintaining a friendly, small

company atmosphere that emphasizes personal service. We proudly stand behind our work.

Our History http://www.kracon.com/our.htm

1 of 1 5/20/2014 9:04 AM
 

The following photos are presented as examples of

the quality of Kracon's craftsmanship and versitility.

CLICK ON ANY IMAGE FOR A LARGER VIEW

These are just a few of the many aircraft Kracon has

refinished over the years. Give them a call for details

about refinishing your aircraft.

916-645-1614

In a recent issue of PROFESSIONAL PILOT Magazine, only three paint

shops nationwide were mentioned and Kracon was one of the three.

Our Work http://www.kracon.com/ourwork.htm

1 of 1 5/20/2014 9:04 AM
**Exhibit 31.2.1**
***Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for SCW***
I, Robert J. Sprowls, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
 1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2005 ofSouthern California Water Company (referred to as “SCW”);
 2)  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;
 3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of SCW as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
 4)  SCW’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for SCW and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to SCW, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;
 b)  evaluated the effectiveness of SCW’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and
 c)  disclosed in this report any change in SCW’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during SCW’s most recent fiscal quarter (SCW’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, SCW’s internal control over financial reporting.
 5)  SCW’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to SCW’s auditors and the auditcommittee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect SCW’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and
 b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in SCW’s internal controls over financial reporting.     Dated: May 10, 2005 By:  /s/ ROBERT J. SPROWLS       Robert J. Sprowls
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7225
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUDOLPH BRYANT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-94-68-H, CA-96-46-4-H) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 25, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rudolph Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edwin Hamilton, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5465 

To suspend temporarily the duty on oxyfluorfen. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on oxyfluorfen. 

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

3 SECTION 1. OXYFLUORFEN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 2-chloro-1-(3-ethoxy-4- 

nitrophenoxy)4- 

(trifluoromethyl)benzene 

(oxyfluorfen) (CAS No. 

42874–03–3) (provided for 

in subheading 2918.99.20) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 5465 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sammy Smith, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.), rendered on July 5, 1988, convicting defendant of burglary in the third degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.
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






In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Hotel Outsource Management International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jacob Ronnel, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:




(1)  The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






By: /s/ Jacob RonnelJacob Ronnel, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerHotel Outsource Management International, Inc.March 29, 2010
#### Emanuel TEPPER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 3, 1954.

Clay Shackelford, Shackelford & Bur-nam, Richmond, Earl B. Rose, Beattyville, Lester & Riedinger, Newport, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CAMMACK, Justice.

On March 17, 1954, Emanuel Tepper was indicted for the crime of forcibly detaining Anna Faye Gross, with intent to have carnal knowledge of her. When the case came up for trial on August 23', 1954, the Commonwealth moved the court to file away the indictment with the right to reinstate it on its own motion and later bring the defendant to trial. Tepper objected to the motion and moved the court to try the case at the present or a subsequent term of court. ,This motion was overruled, and the motion of the Commonwealth to file away the indictment with leave to reinstate was sustained. Tep-per objected and excepted to these rulings, and moved for an appeal to this Court, which was granted.

The question to be determined on this appeal js entirely one of law as to whether the order is a “final order” within the meaning of. Section 335 of the Criminal Code from which an appeal will lie.

This question was before the Court in the case of Jones v. Commonwealth, 114 Ky. 599, 71 S.W. 643. In that case it was held it was error, to file away an indictment with leave to reinstate where the accused had been served with process and objected to the order. That case is controlling here. .

Judgment reversed, with directions to set it aside, and for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
#### Ex parte Walter Reece MOSELY.

No. 26400.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 22, 1953.

No attorney on appeal.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The relator was ordered to enter into a peace bond and was remanded to jail for failure to make the same. He applied for a writ of habeas corpus; the court denied the relief prayed for; and relator appealed.

Relator now moves to dismiss this appeal.

The request is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.