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

                                                                  Exhibit 10.23

                           OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                                1998 STOCK PLAN

                             STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

     Oplink Communications, Inc. (the "Company") hereby grants an option to
purchase Shares of its Common Stock to the optionee named below on the terms
and conditions set forth in this cover sheet, the Company's 1998 Stock Plan,
and Exhibit A attached hereto (together, the "Stock Option Agreement"):

<TABLE>

  <S>                                <C>
     GRANT NUMBER:                     98-559

     DATE OF GRANT:                    5/10/00

     VESTING COMMENCEMENT DATE:        2/11/00

     EXERCISE PRICE PER SHARE:         $5.00

     TOTAL NUMBER OF SHARES GRANTED:   50,000.00

     TYPE OF OPTION:                        INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION
                                       ---
                                        X   NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION
                                       ---
     EXPIRATION DATE:                  MAY 10, 2010

</TABLE>

EXERCISE SCHEDULE:

     The option granted hereunder may be exercised, in whole or in part,
based on the vesting schedule as set forth below.

     Twenty-five percent (25%) of the shares subject to the shall vest in the
holder thereof on the one year anniversary of the Vesting Commencement Date
and an additional one-forty-eighth (1/48) of the shares subject to the option
shall vest in the holder thereof at the end of each full month thereafter;
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that in the event of change of control at the Company, and
only in such event, the aforesaid vesting schedule shall accelerate in full
immediately.

     BY SIGNING THIS COVER SHEET, YOU AGREE THAT THIS STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS COVER SHEET, THE 1998 STOCK
PLAN AND EXHIBIT A, WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART OF THIS DOCUMENT.

OPTIONEE:                                 Oplink Communications, Inc.
                                          a California corporation

/s/ Robert David Spreng                   By /s/ Joe Liu
-----------------------------               --------------------------------
Robert David Spreng                         Joe Liu, Chief Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 8, 2014

No. 04

- 13

- 00494

- CR

EX PARTE Richard Anthony BALDEZ

,

From the County Court at Law No. 4, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2519 Honorable Sarah Garrahan, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we ABATE the appeal to permit the trial court to clarify its June 25, 2013 order consistent with article 11.072, section 7(a). T EX

. C ODE
C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.072, § 7(a) (West Supp. 2013) . The tri al court is ORDERED to, within thirty days after the date of this order: (1) make appropriate orders and, if appropriate, enter findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (2) deliver any orders and findings of fact and

conclusions of law to the trial cou rt clerk. The trial court clerk is ORDERED to: (1) prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing all orders and findings of fact and conclusions of law which the trial court renders or makes; and (2) file the supplemental clerk’s record with the clerk of this Court within thirty days after the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on January 8, 2014

.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

cour t on this 8th day of January , 201 4

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 0 5 / 1 5 /2015 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR– 2013
- 0602 **SUBJECT:** Switch Talk at the Alliance Center on 0 5 / 1 4 /2015 **SUMMARY :**  Laura Farris delivered a presentation at the Alliance Center on 05 / 1 4/2015 on the Clean Power Plan . The meeting was held in Denver , Colorado . The Clean Power Plan was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA**  Laura Farris, EPA Region 8 **External Stakeholders** General p ublic
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 Annual Report of PDI, Inc. (the “Company”) on form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Marquard,
as Chief Executive 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, as amended;
  and




(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.









Date:
      March 7, 2008
            /s/
      Michael J. MarquardChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)




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.
Case 1:22-cr-00028-H-BU Document 27 Filed 07/05/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 60
Case 1:22-cr-00028-H-BU Document 27 Filed 07/05/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 61
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19

- 0734

_________________ WILLIAM SCOTT ROGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v. LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY, LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY SH ERIFF'S OFFICE, LE O C. DUTTON in his capacity as Lewis & Clark County Sheriff, JASON GRIMMIS, in his capacity as Lewis & Clark County Undersheriff and former Captain for the Lewis & Clark County Detention Center, ALAN HUGHES, in his capacity as Captain for the Lewis & Clark Detention Center, JOHN and JANE DOES 1 through 50, in their capacity as Employees of the Lewis & Clark County Detention Center,

Defendants and Appellees. O R D E R

_________________ This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellant’s opening brief filed on March 27, 2020 , this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with the below

-referenced Rule and must be resubmitted. M. R. App. P. 12(1)(i) require appellants to attach an appendix including “the relevant judgment, order(s), findings of fact, conclusion of law, jury instruction(s), ruling(s), or decision(s) from which the appeal is taken together with any written
me morandum or rationale of the court, and those pages of the transcript containing any oral ruling in support.” A ppellant’s brief contains an appendix with an index, but does not include the referenced order. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the referenced brief is rejected. 03/30/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0734IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order the

Appellant shall file with the Clerk of this Court a revised brief containing the revisions
necessary to comply with the specified R ule and that the Appellant shall serve copies of the revised brief on all parties of record ; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions , or deletions other than those specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief. The Clerk is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to the Appellant and to all parties of record.

Electronically signed by: Ingrid Gustafson Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 30 2020
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
REGARDING THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2009

In connection with the Annual Report of Heritage Commerce Corp (the "Company") 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, Lawrence D. McGovern, 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, that:



March 16, 2010

/s/ LAWRENCE D. MCGOVERN Lawrence D. McGovern Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

PETER BEASLEY,

Plaintiff,

 v. Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-M-BT

GREGORY GREENLEE et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court in this civil RICO action brought by pro se Plaintiff Peter 

Beasley came the following related filings: Beasley’s Opposed Motion to Disqualify 

Counsel for Defendant Blacks in Technology Foundation (BIT) (ECF No. 25); BIT’s 

Response to Beasley’s Motion to Disqualify, which includes a request to declare 

Beasley a vexatious litigant (ECF No. 26); Beasley’s Motion for Leave to File a 

Motion to Strike BIT’s request to have him declared a vexatious litigant (ECF No. 

29); and Beasley’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss BIT’s request to have him 

declared a vexatious litigant (ECF No. 34).

The Court DENIES without prejudice BIT’s request to declare Beasley a 

vexatious litigant and strikes the request (Section D) from BIT’s Response to 

Beasley’s Motion to Disqualify. A request for a court order must be made by motion 

and not in a responsive brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). BIT may refile its request as a 

separate motion. The Court further DENIES as moot Beasley’s Motion for Leave to 

File a Motion to Strike and Beasley’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. 

Case 3:22-cv-00532-X-BT Document 46 Filed 06/24/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 802
2

Finally, the Court DENIES Beasley’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel, which is 

based on his allegations that BIT is a fictitious corporation. These are the same 

allegations that form the basis of Beasley’s substantive claims against BIT. Indeed, 

Beasley’s prayer for relief is for a declaratory judgment that BIT is a fictitious 

corporation and a court order directing the Ohio Secretary of State to revoke BIT’s 

charter. BIT has filed an answer denying Beasley’s claims. Accordingly, it is 

appropriate to determine those claims on the merits in another procedural context, 

and not in the context of a motion to disqualify counsel. 

SO ORDERED.

June 24, 2022. 

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00532-X-BT Document 46 Filed 06/24/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 803
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



David P. Mansfield,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Provident Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”), and Carol L. Houle, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify in his or her capacity as an officer of the Company that they
have reviewed the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”)
and that to the best of their knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: March 28, 2017 | /s/ David P. Mansfield                              
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------
|                     | David P. Mansfield                                  
|                     | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|                     |                                                     
|Date: March 28, 2017 | /s/ Carol L. Houle                                  
|                     | Carol L. Houle                                      
|                     | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



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.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 230 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 230

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             March 23 (legislative day, February 22), 1994

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
      To correct an error in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1804.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 1804) to improve learning and 
teaching by providing a national framework for education reform; to 
promote the research, consensus building, and systemic changes needed 
to ensure equitable educational opportunities and high levels of 
educational achievement for all American students; to provide a 
framework for reauthorization of all Federal education programs; to 
promote the development and adoption of a voluntary national system of 
skill standards and certifications; and for other purposes, the Clerk 
of the House of Representatives shall make the following correction: in 
section 1043(c)(1), after ``within any indoor facility'' insert ``in 
the United States''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 23, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### GORHAM v. STATE.

No. 25109.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 24, 1951.

*922None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for felony theft in which the jury assessed the penalty at four years in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception in the record and no statement of facts. The proceedings appear to be regular except for the fact that the court failed to apply the indeterminate sentence law. The sentence is hereby reformed to read: “ * * * the said Clarence Gorham shall be confined in said penitentiary for a term of not less than two years and not more than four years, * *

With the sentence so reformed, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF 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, Robert W. Zack, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
Catalytica Energy Systems, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/    Robert W. ZackName:

Robert W. ZackTitle:

Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial
OfficerDate:

March 30, 2004




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.
Opinion filed March 29, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-19-00071-CV

__________

LORENZO MERAZ DAVILA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 385th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR44032

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Lorenzo Meraz Davila has filed a pro se notice of appeal from an order to 

withdraw funds from his inmate trust account. Upon reviewing the documents filed 

in this court, we wrote Appellant and informed him that it did not appear that this 

court had jurisdiction to entertain his appeal. We requested that Appellant respond 

and show grounds to continue this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Appellant has

filed a response, but his response fails to show grounds upon which this appeal may

continue.
2

Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from 

final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex. 

2007); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). A notice or 

order to withdraw funds is not a final, appealable order. See Harrell v. State, 286 

S.W.3d 315, 316 n.1, 321 (Tex. 2009) (“withdrawal order” is actually a notification 

from the court, not an order); Ramirez v. State, 318 S.W.3d 906, 907–08 (Tex. 

App.—Waco 2010, no pet.). The documents on file in this court, including 

Appellant’s response and his notice of appeal, indicate that Appellant is attempting 

to appeal from the trial court’s order to withdraw funds. It does not appear that 

Appellant has filed any post-notification motion in the trial court, such as a motion 

to strike the order to withdraw inmate funds. An order ruling on such a motion 

would be appealable. See Harrell, 286 S.W.3d 315. However, at this time, no

appealable order has been entered in this case.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

March 29, 2019

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating.

 

1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 2, 2023

No. 04-23-00578-CR

Lawrence Joseph GALL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR8257

Honorable Joel Perez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on August 2, 2023.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of August, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Texas

Dallas

Jason Davon Laurenson §

Petitioner, §

§

v. § Case Number: 3:22−cv−00493−D−BK

§

USA §

Respondent. §

ORDER REQUIRING PETITIONER TO RESPOND

REGARDING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, it appears that the section 2255 motion may be barred by

the one−year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) states:

A 1−year period of limitation shall apply to a motion under this section. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of−

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created

by governmental action in violation of the Constitution or laws of

the United States is removed, if the movant was prevented from

making a motion by such governmental action;

(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by

the Supreme Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the

Supreme Court and made retroactively applicable to cases on

collateral review; or

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims

presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due

diligence.

Therefore, Petitioner is ORDERED to file a response no later than

4/1/2022, explaining why this case is not barred by the one−year statute of limitations

or why the statute of limitations should be tolled on equitable grounds. Failure to comply

with this order may result in the dismissal of the section 2255 motion for failure to prosecute

Case 3:22-cv-00493-D-BK Document 4 Filed 03/03/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 46
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Signed 3/3/2022.

Renee Harris Toliver

Magistrate Judge

Case 3:22-cv-00493-D-BK Document 4 Filed 03/03/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 47