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

                           Section 1350 Certifications
     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
     with Respect to the North Valley Bancorp Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
                      for the Quarter ended March 31, 2007

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code),  each
of the undersigned  officers of North Valley Bancorp,  a California  corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

         1.       The  Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
                  ended March 31, 2007 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the
                  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or  15(d)  of the  Securities
                  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated: May 8, 2007                        /s/ Michael J. Cushman
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Michael J. Cushman
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated: May 8, 2007                        /s/ Kevin R. Watson
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Kevin R. Watson
                                          Executive Vice President &
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer &
                                          Principal Accounting Officer)

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided to North  Valley  Bancorp  and will be  retained by North  Valley
Bancorp and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff
upon request.
---

**Exhibit 13.1**

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 on Form 20-F of Chai-Na-Ta Corp (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers 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, to the best of such officer’s knowledge: (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 the operations of the Company. /s/ WILMAN WONG

   /s/ TERRY LUCKName:

   Wilman Wong

   Name:

   Terry LuckTitle:

   Chief Executive Officer

   Title:

   Chief Financial OfficerDate:

   March 14, 2012

   Date:

   March 14, 2012


---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                         SATCON TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION>
                                                                  FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                            ------------------------------------------
                                                                1996           1995           1994
                                                            ------------   ------------   ------------
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>            <C>
Calculation of Shares:
     Weighted Average Shares Outstanding..................    7,285,756      7,079,855      6,601,282
     Net Shares Outstanding from Assumed Exercise
          of stock options................................         -              -           619,681
     Net Warrants Outstanding from Assumed Exercise
          of Warrants.....................................         -              -           126,135
                                                            ------------   ------------   ------------
     Net Common Stock Equivalents Outstanding.............         -              -           745,816
                                                            ------------   ------------   ------------
     Weighted Average Shares - Primary....................    7,285,756      7,079,855      7,347,098
                                                            ------------   ------------   ------------
     Additional Shares Assumed Exercised with Full
          Dilution - Options..............................         -              -              -
     Additional Shares Assumes Exercised with Full
          Dilution - Warrants.............................         -              -            20,383
                                                            ------------   ------------   ------------
     Weighted Average Shares - Fully Diluted..............    7,285,756      7,079,855      7,367,481
                                                            ============   ============   ============

Calculation of Earnings per Share:
     Net Income...........................................  $(2,864,836)   $(1,210,045)    $1,244,892
     Primary Earnings per Share...........................  $     (0.39)   $     (0.17)    $     0.17
     Fully Diluted Earnings per Share.....................  $     (0.39)   $     (0.17)    $     0.17
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600105

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

SHANE D. MANUEL

Petty Officer Third Class (E-4), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Major Michael Libretto, USMC.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Christopher C. McMahon, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Lieutenant Jetti L. Gibson, JAGC, USN.

_________________________

Decided 17 November 2016

_________________________

Before CAMPBELL, RUGH, and HUTCHISON, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but may be cited 

as persuasive authority under NMCCA Rule of Practice and 

Procedure 18.2.

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

Officer and enlisted general court-martial members convicted the 

appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of attempted sexual 

abuse of a child in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 880. The members also convicted the appellant of a 

novel specification of enticement of a child in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, 

10 U.S.C. § 934, but the military judge conditionally dismissed it before 

sentencing as an unreasonable multiplication of charges. The members 

sentenced the appellant to 18 months’ confinement, reduction to pay grade E1, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. 

The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged. 
2

While the appellant originally submitted this case for review without 

assignment of errors, his supplemental assignment of error avers that the 

military judge erred in the findings instructions provided to the court 

members. Without objection, the military judge instructed the members, in 

part, “[i]f based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly 

convinced that the accused is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him 

guilty.”1

In United States v. Rendon, __ M.J. __, No. 201500408, 2016 CCA LEXIS 

643, at *26 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1 Nov 2016), we concluded the military 

judge did not err in using the same challenged instruction. In accordance 

with that holding, we summarily reject the appellant’s assignment of error.

United States v. Clifton, 35 M.J. 79, 81-82 (C.M.A. 1992). 

The findings and sentence are affirmed.

 

1 Record at 250 (emphasis added) .

 For the Court 

 R.H. TROIDL 

 Clerk of Court
Order entered February 7, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01073-CR

ADA BETTY CUADROS-FERNANDEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380-80933-06

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s February 4, 2013 motion for extension of time to file 

appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file the brief within FIFTEEN DAYS from the date of this 

order.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Barton, Receiver, Respondent, vs. Twohy Mercantile Company, Appellant.

*October 20*

*November 7, 1899.*

*Appeal: Return: Judgment roll.*

The supreme court cannot entertain an appeal from a judgment unless a judgment roll made up in substantial compliance with sec. 2898, Stats. 1898, has been transmitted thereto as required by sec. 8050. .

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas ■county: A. J. Yulte, Circuit Judge.

*Appeal dismissed,.*

For the appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of, *Ross, Dwyer*c& *Sa/niteh.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Heed <&*Reed, and ■oral argument by *Myron Reed.*

Maeshall, J.

The appeal purports to be from a judgment. The only error assigned is that the findings are contrary to the evidence. The return on the appeal contains what purports, to be a proposed bill of exceptions, a bunch •of papers prepared for a completed bill of exceptions ready for the trial judge’s certificate, findings of fact and conclusions of law, the notice of appeal, bond on appeal, and a certificate of the clerk of the trial court that such papers are •all the papers on filé in the action, and that they are transmitted pursuant to the notice of appeal.

Sec. 3050, Stats. 1898, provides that on appeal from a judgment the clerk of the trial court shall transmit to the supreme court the judgment roll. The pleadings and a copy ■of the judgment are necessary parts of the judgment roll. Sec. 2898. Nothing approaching the requirements of a judgment roll has been transmitted to this court on this appeal, and it clearly appears by the clerk’s certificate that there has never been one made up and filed in the trial court. Without a proper return in compliance with sec. 3050, this *421court cannot entertain an appeal. *Sayles v. Gudath,*9 Wis. 159; *Wheeler v. Scott,*3 Wis. 362; *Blodget v.*Hatfield, 5 Wis. 77; *Kellogg v. Smith,*10 Wis. 135; *Shewey v. Manning,*14 Wis. 448; *Hoffman & B. Mfg. Co. v. Burdick,*95 Wis. 342. It follows that this appeal must be dismissed.

*By the*Court.— So ordered.
#### Atkinson, Appellant, vs. The Chicago *&*Northwestern Railway Company, Respondent.

*September 6*

*September 20,*1887.

Appeal: *Dismissal for misdescription of judgment in notice and undertaking.*

An appeal will be dismissed where the notice of appeal gives one date to the judgment appealed from, and the undertaking another date, but the record only shows one of an earlier date than either.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Brown*County.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

■For the appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of *J. J. Tracy.*

*W. A.*Eldredge, for the respondent.

Cole, C. J.

In this case the notice of appeal states that the appeal is from a judgment entered on the 21st day of December, 1885. The undertaking describes the judgment which is appealed from as one recovered on the 29th day of December, 1886. We find in the record a judgment in due form, which is signed by the circuit judge, dated December 17, 1885, and filed with the clerk on that day. This judgment seems to have been perfected by the taxation of costs on the 29th day of December, 1885. There is not in the record any judgment of the date of the one described, either in the notice of appeal or in the undertaking. Such being the state of the record, we are unable to consider the case upon the merits. The matter is one whiclP'cannot be overlooked or disregarded, for it is obvious we would be justified in considering only the judgment appealed from. And, as has been said, the record shows no such judgment. No other course is left but to dismiss the appeal. *Sayles v. Gudath,*9 Wis. 159; *Kellogg v.*Smith, 10 Wis. 135.

*By the*Court.— The appeal is dismissed.
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA
P ATRICK

COLLINS , INC., P laintif f,
v. Civil Action No. 11-58 (RMU/JMF ) DOES 1-72, Defendan ts.
ORDER In acc ordanc e with the ac company ing Me morandum Opinion, it is, hereby , ORDERED that plaintiff show ca use in writingby

Fe bruar y 10, 2012, why

this Court
can a ssert jurisdiction over a ny defe ndant (a ) who is not domiciled in the District of Columbia, or (b) a s to whom plaintiff lacks a g ood faith basis to asser t that he or she c ommitt ed the a ct that is the pre mise of the plaintiff’ s claim for r elief in the D istrict of Columbia, and why venue is prope r unless the def

endant r esides in the District of Columbia. It is further, he reby , ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for L eave to Take Additional Discover y Prior to Rule 26(f) Confere nce; Me morandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof [#16] is DENIED without prejudice. SO ORDERED.___________________________ J OHN M. F ACCI OLA UNI TED STATES MAGI STRATE J UDGE

2
REF ID:A67134 

• 

CROSS ~ P.EFERENCE SHEET 

FILE UNDER:. 

AJe 111 1111:s- NolV- /Y1,f,ta.~1 

SY'!ITCPSISi ~ 

~-

PA.PERS FILED UNDER: 

Date of' 

Correspondence 

)-I I - ~,,_/ 

R -1 111 

ec\assified and approved for release by NSJ 

n 04-17-2014 ursuantto E.O. 13526 

.. - - - ·-
• 

·CONFERENCE ON SIGNAL SECURITY 

1. Discussion of ·MemQr$ndum or 13 April 1944 from Col. Tozer, 

of INA Committe~-~- ·n.orth Africa, to British War Office, subject Signal Security. . .· .. 

2. "What are the procE;t·dures·, systems. an4 methods now ·employed .... · 

by u.s. ArmY. fi~ed a~d tactical conununications radio networks 

·that are· probablT ·.Yielding impo~tant informs. ti on to enemy 

traffic analpts? .. _·sugges.ted q~estions: 

'!.· 

!!..• 

e. 

Procedures ~·Ol')Jlect~d with the assignment o:r radio ·call .. · ... ·.. . . 

81.gns .and ·rreque~cies, which permit or the ·re.construction. 

or the D:ets. and thus yield. impor~nt mil_i.tary infori:na ti on. 

Procedures connected with the use of·. indicators, permitting the segregation or ~essages according to 

secur~ty classifications and cr-yptp~aphic systems. 

Procedures .. w:h.ich serve to differentiate Army messages 

from hilJla• messages, British mess.ages f'ro:m American 

messages, OWI mes~ages from . .4.rmy.messages~.War Correspondents• messages sent via Army channels trom Army ~essages, 

etc. 

Procedlires which enable dedu~tionQ to be made _merelf from 

the ebb and flow ·of traf.f"i.c • . . 

Proc~d~e·s· vh~qh ·di_stinguish th~ :precedence .of ~essages,_.:. 

. ~;\ •. 

. \~.~ -~ . 

yielding importail~· ·-info~ ti on regarding inov~ments ot . ships 6 : 

e·onvoys,· open!~. or btpor_~~nt conferences, et0. · . 

~- .··~·i-.;, j ·. :· .. 

. 

, .. ---_ ~ 

~) .. . . __ -· _· -,----.~_::j'.--,:_, ... ;~~ .... · .... · ... 

ursuantto E .0. 1352 ----· . -- ---=------· - .. ·. 
.. 

REF-TD :A72591---- ...........---·- -

• 

f. Procedures which give general clues as to the contents 

of messages. 

&.• Equipment, the use of which; serves to differentiate 

high commands from low commands. 

3. What steps can be taken to eliminate or to reduce the 

.foregoing sources-of informatio:q_and still permit coltDl'l.unications 

to be handled exped1.tiC>usly. 

_. ~ ·. ; .. 

-~ 

'.-.: 

.. , ...... · . 

. ··.·· .:·· . 

. ·,.· 

... _, ~-·· 

;,: '';:;~'.-;(_. '_.,'". '.· "' -

.> 

·•. :._ .. ,·_..
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0133. MARSHAE D. BROOKS v. THE STATE.

In 2011, Marshae D. Brooks pled guilty to multiple offenses, for which he was

sentenced to life imprisonment. He subsequently filed a “Motion to Retain Right to

Withdraw the October 28, 2011 Guilty Plea.” The trial court denied the motion,

treating it as a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Brooks then filed an application for

discretionary appeal in this Court. Jurisdiction, however, appears to lie in the

Supreme Court.

From the limited information included in the application materials, it appears

that at least one of Brooks’s convictions wasfor murder. Under our Constitution, the

Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll cases in which a sentence of

death was imposed or could be imposed.” See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI,

Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death can be imposed for the crime of murder,

jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court. See OCGA § 17-10-30 (b); Neal v. State,

290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765) (2012) (Hunstein, C. J., concurring); see also State

v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524 (322 SE2d 711) (1984) (directing this Court to transfer “all

cases in which either a sentence of death or of life imprisonment has been imposed

upon conviction of murder”). Accordingly, Brooks’s application is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/01/2016

November 01, 2016
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4


                          Independent Auditors' Consent




The Board of Directors
NWE Capital (Cyprus) Ltd.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (no.
333-35139) on Form S-8, in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (no. 333-18713), in the registration
statement (no. 333-5396) on Form S-3, and in the registration statement (no.
333-5400) on Form S-3 of PLD Telekom Inc. of our report dated March 30, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of NWE Capital (Cyprus) Ltd. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholder's equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three year period ended December 31, 1998, which report appears in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December
31, 1998 of PLD Telekom Inc.

Our report dated March 30, 1999 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company's parent, PLD Telekom Inc. (PLD) does not presently have
sufficient funds on hand to meet its current debt obligations. PLD's failure to
make payment in full when required could result in a cross-default under and
acceleration of other debt obligations for which the Company is a guarantor.
These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as
a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.




                                         KPMG

St. Petersburg, Russia
April 23, 1999
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 08

- 00342

- CR

ROBERT VINCENT ENRIG HT, SR. , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the County Court at Law No

. 1 Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. T200701154

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Vincent Enright, Sr. was found guilty of a Class C Misdemeanor in the
justice of the peace court and appealed that decision to the county court at law for a trial

de novo. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 45.042 (Vernon 2006 ). He was found
guilty by a jury in the county court at law and a fine of $50 was imposed. Enright has
attempted to appeal that judgment.
In a letter, the Clerk of this Court notified Enright and the State that we
questioned our jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the appeal was fr om a trial
de novo in the county court at law from an inferior court’s ruling and requested aEnright v. State Page 2

response from both parties. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 4.03 (Vernon 2005).
Each party has provided a response.
We have no jurisdiction of appeals from a trial de novo in the county court at law
of an inferior court’s ruling if the fine imposed in the county court at law does not

exceed $100. Id . The fine imposed in the county court at law was only $50. Enright’s
response to our letter did not present any argument that we have jurisdiction of this
appeal which overcomes the above described limits placed upon this Court’s
jurisdiction by the legislature.
Accordingly, his appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 44.3.

TOM GRAY Chief Justi ce
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 25 , 2009 Do not publish [CR25]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         248,269
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          42,107
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                30,700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,449,273
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,219,444
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,169,421
<LOANS>                                      9,100,542
<ALLOWANCE>                                     88,010
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,682,748
<DEPOSITS>                                   8,921,420
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,298,100
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            473,833
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,646,892
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,740
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,340,763
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              14,682,748
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                181,922
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               88,581
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   639
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               271,142
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              57,622
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             118,176
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          152,966
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,250
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              11,148
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 60,669
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                132,337
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     132,337
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,019
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.52
<LOANS-NON>                                      9,189
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,692
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                74,525
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   10,297
<RECOVERIES>                                     3,463
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               88,010
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            88,010
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>