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

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


        In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aware, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 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.


/s/ Michael A. Tzannes                           /s/ Robert J. Weiskopf
----------------------                           ----------------------
Chief Executive Officer                          Chief Financial Officer


Date:  March 16, 2005                            Date: March 16, 2005

        The certification set forth above is being furnished as an exhibit
solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document of the
Company or the certifying officers.
Exhibit 3.2


                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                           UIH AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC, INC.


                       (Pursuant to the Section 7-110-106)

     UIH Australia/Pacific, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and
by virtue of the Colorado  Business  Corporation Act (the  "Corporation"),  does
hereby  certify  as  follows  for  the  purpose  of  amending  its  Articles  of
Incorporation:

     1.   That  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the   Corporation   duly  adopted
          resolutions  containing an amendment to the Articles of  Incorporation
          of the  Corporation  set forth below,  declaring  such amendment to be
          advisable and calling for the approval of the sole  stockholder of the
          Corporation to such amendment.

     2.   That the holder of all of the  outstanding  shares of Common  Stock of
          the Corporation  entitled to vote,  acting by means of written consent
          in lieu of a meeting  pursuant to Section  7-107-104  of the  Colorado
          Business  Corporation  Act,  adopted and  approved  these  Articles of
          Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation.

     3.   That  Article I of the  Articles  of  Incorporation  be amended in its
          entirety to read as follows:

          The name of the corporation is United Australia/Pacific, Inc.

     4.   That  except as amended  hereby,  the  provisions  of the  Articles of
          Incorporation,  as heretofore amended,  shall remain in full force and
          effect.

     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  these  Articles  of  Amendment  to the  Articles  of
Incorporation of the Corporation have been signed this 27th day of August, 1999.

                                        UIH AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC, INC.



                                        By: /S/  Ellen P. Spangler
                                           -------------------------------------
                                            Ellen P. Spangler
                                            Vice President and Secretary
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00328-CR

NO. 03-03-00329-CR

Robert Dickinson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 2022151 & 3021151, HONORABLE FRED A. MOORE, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

A juryfound appellantRobert Dickinson guilty of aggravated robbery and possession

of a prohibited weapon. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2003), § 46.05 (West Supp. 2004). For

these offenses, the jury assessed prison terms of twenty-five and five years, respectively.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeals are

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
2

Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and he was advised of his

right to examine the appellate records and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the records and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeals are

frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the records that might arguably support the appeals.

The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Kidd and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: January 15, 2004

Do Not Publish
#### State *v.*Bradley.

[S. *C. ante*403.]

The words assigned in an indictment for perjury were that “ *Gatling*did not interrupt the constable in driving the catite to *Gatling’s*house,” and the words proved were, that *“ Galling*did no; assist in driving the cattle trom the officer.” It was tn lu, tbai tbV words, charged must be clearly and evidently of the same meaning without the help of any implication, or any thing extrinsic *$*and that in this, case the variance was fata). ' *p*

This cause was now brought before the court, and they took time to consider of it, and to look into authorities,, and after a few days gave judgment...

*534
      *per curiam*

We have looked into fhe authorities in *Salk.*660. *Doug.*193, 665. *Cowp.*229. 1 *Term*235. 2 *H P. C.*436. *s.*36. The result of l bese cases seems to be, that any the least variance in the deseiiption of a record, is fata! — and as to things written, tliar they may be described two ways ; either by the. tenor oraccording to the substance. When described by fhe tenor, the very words must be followed *;*but ihe omission of a letter, .not altering the word to another, is not fatal. If you describe the thing written by its substance and effect, then you need not set dowu the very words written; but if you describe the same, sense and meaning, it will do. — ■ As to tiie words spoken, there can be no tenor of them, and therefore where die sense and meaning of the words set down in the indictment, is precisely the same with those.* proven in the e\ idenee, though not the very same woi ds.sneh evidence will support tin indictment; but then the meaning must be evidently and clearly ihe sa.me, without the help of any implication or any tiling extrinsic. The oath charged to he sworn is, that *Gatling*did not interrupt the Constable in driving the cacle f¡ *Gatling’s*house : the evidence is, he swore *Gatling*did not assist in driving the cattle from the officer. The words contains d ■ in ihe evidence, are not necessarily of the same sense and meaning with those laid — therefore let the judgment be arrested, and it was arrested. *Vide L. R. 1515.*2 *Stra. 787.*

Note. — *State v. Coffey,*N. C. *Term Rep.*272. See also *Whitaker*v. *Freeman,*1*Dev. Rep. 271.*
May 24,2012 Aloha Ley Office ofAviation Analysis 1200 NewJerseyAve., SE, W86-310 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Ley: I support the City ofAbilene's request for aSmall Community Air Service Development Grantto improve air service atAbilene Regional Airport. As an under-served airport, ABI is requesting funding to subsidize new service with an additional airline. Your approval ofthe grant proposal, resulting in additional air service for our region, would provide: • Increased customer choices by adding non-stop service from ABI to an additional airline hub airport • Increased route opportunities and capacity • Reduced average fares paid by passengers using ABI • Reduced leakage to otherairports in the region I respectfully request yourfavorable action on Abilene Regional Airport's grant application.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                             THE LEAP GROUP, INC.



             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     Twelve Months Ended January 31,        Three Months Ended January 31,
                                     -------------------------------        ------------------------------
                                          1997         1996                     1997            1996
                                          ----         ----                     ----            ----
<S>                                  <C>              <C>                   <C>               <C>
Weighted average of common
  shares outstanding                    9,600,000     9,600,000               9,600,000         9,600,000
Effect of options granted
  within one year prior to the
  Offering, based on the treasury
  stock method                            192,829       508,680                 172,800           508,680
Weighted average of common shares
  issued in the Offering                1,333,333             -               4,000,000                 -
                                      -----------   -----------              ----------        ----------

Total                                  11,126,162    10,108,680              13,772,800        10,108,680


Net income                            $ 1,305,931   $   700,460                $613,454            $1,546


Net income per common share                 $0.12         $0.07                   $0.05             $0.00

</TABLE>
ite tevhaleal abpacts «5

*, the first TIROS prototype was

that no serious mistakes ate imade. ;
in view of the current priority ittelligence requirements, however,

ich hepitation akeak

i Conse;

‘Jaunching for late 1959, with .

delays wore apparently held

photographs are not entirely

poses, they certainly indicate that »

# practical state of the art. Yet, we
‘the SAMOS Program, or the MIDAS

-X6u are aware, I know, of the repeated
reviews, as well as re-examinations of
all these actions ‘evowedly taken to insure

We zaust purus the development of

SAMOS, and ite unique intelligence collection: rocessing system,
rand all pogaible speed. The Propegnae result-

with renewed

ing from the Us2 iacident
ably the Beviete as well,
‘than was generally known, However,

& continuing One and its solution is a

matataining this

has bed its affect: The nation, and prob.
are aware that we were better informed

the intelligence problem is
prerequisite to

nation's deterrent posture during the {

critical years of the cold war, There have been enough satellites
’ » and now orbiting the earth,

xt that their sovereign air-
‘the

that the Soviets could not



‘gap vintil ah
we_cocteact $0 build the ‘catly Fist :
April, However, on 10 May I acidergl

needed,

The BAMOS program requires « strong Centralized, purgopetal
management. I thers were, for example, One Alr Force agency



Soca tew:
TIMM

I. APROGRAM4r.4110144TE.**41:9114-Csbitielf•331q.9.117:.

34$ k. OitikITAL.ST

AI/LAUNCIIEVON:;THEFpRo*itiOdpraraosisliarn COMP

41,4104"3: 5i!04.1.. 1339:08. 93 . PDT ONI. strricatexie.194t. THE

,., • PRIMARY 1411140 1 OBIECTIVt; TO PLACE THE ADEN saferzuarr

WITS PAYLOAD IN A . itizAi-Ko.O. ORBIT. .WAS ACCOMPLISHED.

THE YTS RADAi`'PLOTB0ARD INDICATED THE FOLLOWING

APPROXIMATE I$3ECTION CONE4TIONS: ALTITUDE, ;19; STATUTE .

•

4,±totolotpic*D.yzpodttri 23,450 Fro; •wisvATIon

iwiltatgw;;.:*:APPZOOCIMATELT. 0 DEG; *AZIMUTH.

144017r-1.9triANGLE, APPROXIMATELY 174.:5 DEC.' THE mama r• 

DATE

PERIOD AtTAINAD' *PPTI4R0 taltID010/GHTLY. ABOVE NOMINAL,

Z ON PIRST:RWAS . . ; sumuennut

PHOP40.,'

fo, Withal ATILVmm -10110 u L txmAusTSD

oule4. on iReWeR1

. ;

. .

SPICIAL. imaTieucTi.


;:. ,::^,

'J
417 

• ',71..x„--
# C_2005045EN.01002006.xml

| 19.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/20

---

Removal from the register of Case C-382/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 45/46)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 18 November 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-382/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.

---

(1)  OJ C 262 23.10.2004.

1

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA D. BUCIO ESCOBEDO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73582

Agency No. A095-175-863

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Maria D. Bucio Escobedo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

FILED

JUL 19 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73582

Escobedo’s contention that the Board’s summary affirmance of the

immigration judge’s decision violated her due process rights is foreclosed by

Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849-52 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s determination that

Escobedo did not meet the continuous physical presence requirement, because her

testimony established that she left the United States for more than 90 days from

1998 to 1999, thereby interrupting the accrual of continuous physical presence in

the United States. See Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2008)

(acknowledging that service of the notice to appear halts the accrual of continuous

physical presence). Because Escobedo’s inability to establish physical presence

was dispositive, any evidence supporting the other elements of cancellation would

not have changed the outcome of the proceedings.

We deny Escobedo’s request for remand to the Board for the Office of the

Chief Counsel to consider prosecutorial discretion and administrative closure. We

express no opinion as to Escobedo’s entitlement to either form of relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112423 - - -T V-- .... __ .... •· • ..------

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE' 

WASHINGTON 

/',.re• J;-i" 

R-1/l-13-t?v 

OFll"lc:a: OF THIIC 11111:C,.IICTA,.V March 21, 1969 

1111111111111111111111 1 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFXPD 

SUBJECT: Comments on State Department Draft Study 

This memorandum responds to your request that we review a 

State Department draft study entitled "International Prospects and 

Problems in Remote Sensing of Earth Resources by Satellite, " 

dated March 13, 1969. Our comments follow. 

Generally, we consider the State proposal to be a constructive 

initial effort and certainly worthy of further consideration. 

1111111111111111111111111III 136D 

The paper provides a reasonable discussion of the many hazards 

inherent in a venture of this nature. One of the more important 

hazards, for example, is the absence of a distinction between that 

information gathered for so-called "beneficial purposes II and that which , 

is collected as economic intelligence. 

State's proposal for international cooperation in this venture is 

particularly attractive in that it provides a needed impetus for ·proceeding jointly with a program directed toward the objectives planned 

by NASA for the ERTS program. . 

We do not agree that a new interagency committee is needed to 

coordinate U.S. efforts in this area. We, in DOD, have for some time 

sponsored the need for a single focal point in the Government to monitor this type activity. Specifically, we have suggested the NASA, an 

'·.. active participant in international space efforts, as the logical candidate for this responsibility. This designation could perhaps be accomplished most effectively through the issuance of a National Security 

.Study Memorandum (NSSM) specifically designating the NASA as "lead 

crew" for remote sensing' of earth resources. This means. of course, 

CONFISEP'JTJAL 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112423 
.,. ,..,, •=:-. ...... , ........ A .. 

' Approved for Rel,ease: 2020/02/07 C05112423 

that State could negotiate the political implications of such endeavors • 

directly with the NASA. . 

It should be kept in mind that it is difficult for the DOD to give a. · .. departmental response to State's draft study in view of the fact that 

the President has directed a Space Group to consider matters such as 

this from a national point of view. The optimum U.S. position will 

probably be well defined as a result of these deliberations. 

We appreciate the opportunity to. review this paper. Please feel 

· free to contact us on any questions you may have concerning the paper 

or our comments. 

.. 

WILLIAM R. YOST 

Lt Colonel; USAF 

Asst Deputy Director 

for Plans & . Policy 

Office of Space Systems 

\, 

\ . 

\ 

CONF10Ef4'l'IAL 

.:.....:.~ ... ,~ ··----~·· ---------'-----'--~--·-·-·······-

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112423
EXHIBIT 12.1
                                                                    ------------



                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Peter Jackson, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Asia Satellite
Telecommunications Holdings Limited;

2.       Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a 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 annual
report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)       designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

c)       disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;

5.       The registrant's other certifying officer 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):

a)       all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; and

b)       any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.



Date: June 29, 2004

                                        /s/ Peter Jackson
                                        -----------------------
                                        Peter Jackson
                                        Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                       1,507,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,755,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 20,199,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,908,000
<PP&E>                                      34,198,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,288,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,929,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,055,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        91,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,761,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,929,000
<SALES>                                     94,654,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            94,654,000
<CGS>                                       62,532,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               62,532,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            31,518,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             170,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                434,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   178,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            256,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   256,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>