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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Shaw Hong, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended January 31, 2009 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OmniVisionTechnologies, Inc. and will be retained by OmniVision Technologies, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

 

Dated: March 12, 2009

 
| ** ** | By:                                               | **/s/ SHAW HONG       ** |
|------------|---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|       | **Shaw Hong**                                     |
|       | *Chief Executive Officer, President and Director* |
|       | *(Principal Executive Officer)*                   |

 

 

I, Anson Chan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended January 31, 2009 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and will be retained byOmniVision Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

Dated: March 12, 2009

** **
| ** ** | By:                                            | **/s/ ANSON CHAN       ** |
|------------|------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|       | **Anson Chan**                                 |
|       | *Chief Financial Officer*                      |
|       | *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 32
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of TS Electronics,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the
"Report"), I, Keith P. Boyd, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  May 9, 2005

                                            /S/ KEITH P. BOYD
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Keith P. Boyd
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


         The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                         CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT

I, Michael Kelleher, President of Quantum Companies, Inc. certify that:


(1) I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-QSB of Quantum Companies,
Inc;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this periodic report does not contain any untrue
statements 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 periodic
report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this periodic 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 periodic report;

(4) The registrant's other certifying officers 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 we have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 periodic report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of the date within 90 days prior to filing date of this
     periodic report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)presented in this periodic report our conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

(5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and
<PAGE>

(6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
periodic report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 Dated: November 10, 2004                /s/ Michael Kelleher
                                           --------------------
                                             Michael Kelleher
                                             President
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                      Consent of Independent Accountants

        We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement of AlphaNet Solutions, Inc. on Form S-8 (relating to the Company's
1995 Stock Plan and 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan) filed on
January 31, 1997 (Registration No. 333-20851), of our report dated February 13,
1997 relating to the consolidated financial statements of AlphaNet Solutions,
Inc. which are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
Morristown, New Jersey

March 26, 1997
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 371 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

Rancho California Water District Southern Riverside County Recycled/ 

Non-Potable Distribution Facilities and Demineralization/Desalination 

Recycled Water Treatment and Reclamation Facility Project. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Mrs. BONO MACK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the Rancho California 

Water District Southern Riverside County Recycled/NonPotable Distribution Facilities and Demineralization/Desalination Recycled Water Treatment and Reclamation 

Facility Project. 

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


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 371 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rancho California 

3 Water District Recycled Water Reclamation Facility Act 

4 of 2009’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

7 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102– 

8 575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by 

9 adding after section 16ll the following: 

10 ‘‘SEC. 16ll. RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT 

11 PROJECT, CALIFORNIA. 

12 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera13 tion with the Rancho California Water District, California, 

14 may participate in the design, planning, and construction 

15 of permanent facilities for water recycling, 

16 demineralization, and desalination, and distribution of 

17 non-potable water supplies in Southern Riverside County, 

18 California. 

19 ‘‘(b) COST SHARING.—The Federal share of the cost 

20 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

21 25 percent of the total cost of the project or $20,000,000, 

22 whichever is less. 

23 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—Funds provided by the Secretary 

24 under this section shall not be used for operation or main25 tenance of the project described in subsection (a).’’. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 371 IH

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of items in 

2 section 2 of Public Law 102–575 is amended by inserting 

3 after the item relating to section 16ll the following: 

‘‘Sec. 16ll. Rancho California Water District Project, California.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130836 Michael F. Cavanagh 

& (65) Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. MONIKA MAZUMDER, Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices 

Deepika S. Mazumder, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130836 

 COA: 261331 

Washtenaw CC: 04-001101-NM 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

REGENTS, ROBERT A. KOEPKE,

PH.D., RAJIV TANDON, M.D.,

SATOSHI MINOSHIMA, M.D.,

WASHTENAW COUNTY 

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH, 

JOSEPH YAROCH, M.D.,

MOONSON R. ELLIOTT ENINSCHE,

B.A., R.S.W., C.S.M., and RICHARD 

PFOUTZ, M.S.W., C.S.W., 

 Defendants, 

and 

MOHAMED AZIZ, M.D., and

STEPHAN F. TAYLOR, M.D.,

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

SRINIBAS MAHAPATRA, M.D.,

 Defendant.
 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for stay of trial court proceedings is DENIED 

without prejudice to the filing of another motion following the Court of Appeals conflict 

panel decision in Ward v Siano, 270 Mich App 584 (2006). The application for leave to 

appeal the February 23, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals remains pending. 

l0918 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
Exhibit 31.2
 Certifications
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Intevac, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ JEFFREY ANDRESON

Jeffrey AndresonVice President, Finance and Administration,
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08556]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-44-000]

Sage Grouse Energy Project, LLC (Complainant) v. PacifiCorp 
(Respondent); Notice of Amended Complaint

    Take notice that on April 2, 2015, Sage Grouse Energy Project LLC 
(Sage Grouse) filed an answer in response to PacifiCorp's March 11, 
2015 filed answer to complaint and request for waiver; thereby, Sage 
Grouse amended its original complaint filed on February 9, 2015, as 
more fully explained in its amendment.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's 
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before 
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and 
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to 
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed 
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 22, 2015.

    Dated: April 8, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08556 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00264

- CV

HMC HELICOPTER SERVI CE, INC. APPELLANT

V.

WEBSTER CAPITAL FINA NCE

F/K/A CENTER CAPITAL

CORPORATION APPELLEE

------------

FROM THE 271ST DISTRICT COURT OF WISE COUNT Y

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------

We have considered “ Appellant's Motion To Dismiss .” It is the court = s

opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Co sts of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 29, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3802 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3802

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove cell phones from 
the limitation on depreciation when used for personal purposes, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 13, 2009

 Mr. Shadegg 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 remove cell phones from 
the limitation on depreciation when used for personal purposes, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Wireless Freedom Act''.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY.

    Congress enacts this Act pursuant to its authority under clause 1 
of section 8 of article I of the Constitution.

SEC. 3. REMOVAL OF CELL PHONES FROM THE LIMITATION ON DEPRECIATION WHEN 
              USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 280F(d)(4) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``and'' at the 
end of clause (iv), by striking clause (v), and by redesignating clause 
(vi) as clause (v).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2008.

SEC. 4. WIRELESS DEVICES PROVIDED BY EMPLOYER.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (e) of section 132 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(3) Treatment of wireless devices.--The provision of any 
        wireless device by an employer to enable an employee to access 
        and use electronic mail, the Internet, or a commercial mobile 
        service (as such term is defined in section 332(d) of the 
        Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d))) shall be treated 
        as a de minimis fringe.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to property provided after December 31, 2008.
                                 <all>
```
Re: HPV2 CASRN 68479-98-1 Albemarle data for review ( Docket reference 

2007-0531-0677) 5 attachments 

Chuantung Lin to: Paul Campanella 09/06/2012 03:18 PM

Cc: John Schaeffer, Kathy Calvo, Marcus Aguilar, Tracy Williamson, 

Myrta Christian

Hi Paul,

The subject line indicated there were 5 attachments, but only three were attached in this email. Do I miss 

any attachment?

Regarding these three test results from the testing of Vapor Pressure (V.P.), Log Kow, and Water 

Solubility endpoints, all the tested results and the test methods used in each endpoint testing are 

reviewed and they are adequate and acceptable to EPA to fulfill the test requirements for these three 

endpoints.

Please let me know If you have any question regarding this matter. Thanks!

Daniel

______________________________________________

Dr. Daniel Chuantung Lin 

Industrial Chemistry Branch

Office of Chemicals Safety and Pollution Prevention

US EPA

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (7406M)

Washington, DC 20460

[Deliveries to: 1201 Constitution Ave., NW, 

EPA East, Room#:5133E, Washington, DC 20460]

202-564-8584 (direct)

202-564-8740 (branch)

202-564-8679 (fax)

Paul Campanella Daniel, Please review the attached data submiss... 09/06/2012 12:35:40 PM

From: Paul Campanella/DC/USEPA/US

To: Chuantung Lin/DC/USEPA/US

Cc: John Schaeffer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Marcus Aguilar/DC/USEPA/US, Kathy 

Calvo/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/06/2012 12:35 PM

Subject: HPV2 CASRN 68479-98-1 Albemarle data for review ( Docket reference 2007-0531-0677) 5 

attachments

Daniel, Please review the attached data submission and give us your opinion regarding the adequacy of 

the data for the test rule. Thanks

Albemarle lbemarle A5 Water Solubility.pd Solubility.pdfAlbemarle lbemarle A3 Vapor Pressure Pressure .pdf Albemarle lbemarle A4 Octanol Octanol water.pd water.pdf

Paul J. Campanella, Ph.D.
Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 

202-564-8091
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6774

TYRONE ROBERSON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:18-cv-01286-RMG)

Submitted: October 26, 2018 Decided: November 6, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Lamar Roberson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Lamar Roberson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended 

that relief be denied and advised Roberson that failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 

F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Roberson has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper 

notice. 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED