alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Karl
Schneider, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Zoran Corporation; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                  
|----------------------------------
|/s/    KARL
SCHNEIDER             
|Karl Schneider                    
|Senior Vice President, Finance and
|Chief Financial Officer           

Dated:
May 2, 2011
#### Norman F. WILLIAMS *v.*LITTLE ROCK CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al

79-205

587 S.W. 2d 42

Opinion delivered October 1, 1979

(Division I)

*600
      *Mathews*<3? *Sanders,*by: *Roy Gene Sanders,*for appellant.

*Joseph C. Kemp,*for appellees.

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

The only issue raised on appeal is whether a wrongfully discharged policeman may, in addition to his lost salary, recover his attorney’s fees.

We find no statutory authority for such a recovery and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Norman Williams, a Little Rock policeman, was fired in October, 1977. The firing was upheld by the Little Rock Civil Service Commission. Williams appealed to the Pulaski County Circuit Court. It found Williams had been wrongfully discharged and ordered him reinstated with back pay, minus his outside earnings received during the period of discharge. Williams was denied recovery of the attorney’s fees he incurred for representation in the matter. It is not disputed the sum was $2,500.00. Williams appeals and asks us to hold that Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-1605.1 authorizes the recovery of attorney’s fees. It reads in part:

> ... In the event that it is finally determined that there was a wrongful . . . discharge of any Civil Service Employee, such employee shall be entitled to judgment against the city *for whatever loss he may have sustained by reason*of. . . *discharge*. . . taking into consideration any remuneration which such ... employee may have received from other sources pending the final determination of his case. [Emphasis added.]

Appellant concedes the general rule is attorney’s fees are not recoverable absent statutory authority. However, he argues the word “loss” in the statute includes attorney’s fees. We disagree that the General Assembly intended for the generic and relative term of “loss” to have such a meaning.

We have consistently, for many years, held that attorney’s fees are not recoverable as an element of damages, *601except as specifically authorized by statute.

In *Romer*v. *Leyner,*224 Ark. 884, 277 S.W. 2d 66 (1955) we discussed our previous decisions and the reasons attorney’s fees are not recoverable. They are in the nature of a penalty on litigation.

We have not ruled directly on the meaning of “loss” but we did, in a similar case, refer it back to the trial court for a determination of “net damages.” *Sanders*v. *City of Fort Smith,*251 Ark. 494, 473 S.W. 2d 182 (1971).

In view of our uniform decisions denying attorney’s fees absent statutory authority, and acknowledging the General Assembly has in several instances specifically authorized attorney’s fees, we cannot read “loss” to include such a recovery.

Affirmed.

We agree. Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Fogleman, JJ.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

Jerone McDougald, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 1:18cv080 

Jeremy Eaches, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Defendants. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the 

Magistrate Judge on October 15, 2019 (Doc. 53). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), including 

notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report 

and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 

1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s R&R (Doc. 53) have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 53) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby 

ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 36) is GRANTED. Further, plaintiff’s remaining 

Motions (Docs. 38, 40, 52) are DENIED and this matter is dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett, Judge 

United States District Court
**
**EXHIBIT 32**

**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 Quarterly Report of Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2023, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity butsolely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

 
 (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended; and 

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

 
  
Argent Trust Company,

Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
 
May 12, 2023
  
By
 /S/ NANCY WILLIS                Nancy Willis    Vice President **
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
                            (as of February 28, 1999)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

          NAME                                   STATE OR COUNTRY OF ORGANIZATION
<S>                                                        <C>
LaRoche Fortier Inc.                                       Delaware

LaRoche International Inc.                                 Delaware

LaRoche Overseas Inc.                                      Delaware

LaRoche Europe Holdings, Inc.                              Delaware

LCI Stone Inc.                                             Delaware

LII Europe S.A.R.L.                                        France

   ChlorAlp S.A.S.  (50% owned)                            France

   LII Management S.A.R.L.                                 France

     LII Europe GmbH                                       Germany

LII Europe B.V.                                            Netherlands
</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4510 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to apply the ban 

on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations in which foreign principals have an ownership interest. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 26, 2010 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

apply the ban on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations in which foreign 

principals have an ownership interest. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the 

5 ‘‘America is for Americans Act’’. 

6 (b) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

7 (1) The Government has a compelling interest 

8 in preventing foreign individuals and associations 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4510 IH

1 from influencing our Nation’s political process. Such 

2 entities neither enjoy nor deserve any legal or con3 stitutional right to such influence. 

4 (2) The presence of foreign individuals or asso5 ciations within domestic associations, to any degree, 

6 creates an unacceptable risk of foreign influence 

7 over our Nation’s political process. 

8 (3) The law does not allow foreign individuals 

9 and associations to vote in our elections; by the 

10 same token, the law should not allow them to exer11 cise any influence over our Nation’s political process, 

12 directly or indirectly, and neither personally nor in 

13 alliance or combination with others. 

14 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF BAN ON CONTRIBUTIONS AND EX15 PENDITURES BY FOREIGN NATIONALS TO DO16 MESTIC CORPORATIONS WITH FOREIGN OWN17 ERSHIP. 

18 Section 319(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

19 of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e(b)) is amended— 

20 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph 

21 (1); 

22 (2) by striking the period at the end of para23 graph (2) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

24 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

25 paragraph: 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4510 IH

1 ‘‘(3) a corporation (other than a foreign prin2 cipal, as so defined) in which one or more foreign 

3 principals directly or indirectly has an ownership in4 terest.’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Robert H. Goode Jr. v. Stephanie McGuire

Appellate case number: 01-20-00028-CV

Trial court case number: 468981

Trial court: Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(c), the trial court clerk is directed to 

prepare, certify, and file in this Court a supplemental clerk’s record including the following:

• “Amended Objection to Application for Appointment of Permanent Guardian of the 

Estate, Application for the Appointment of Community Administrator as Least 

Restrictive Alternative and Alternative Application for Appointment of Permanent 

Guardian of the Estate” (filed July 2, 2020)

• “Application for Leave to Resign as Guardian and for Appointment of Successor 

Guardian” (filed January 20, 2021)

• “Order Appointing Successor Guardian” (signed January 21, 2021, filed February 3, 

2021)

• “Notice of Non-Suit of Amended Objection to Application for the Appointment of 

Guardian of the Estate of Lockie Goode, an Incapacitated Person, Application for the 

Appointment of Community Administrator as Least Restrictive Alternative and 

Alternative Application for Appointment of Permanent Guardian of the Estate” (filed 

March 3, 2021)

• “Order Appointing Permanent Guardian of the Estate” (signed April 12, 2021, filed April 

13, 2021)

• “Order Terminating the §1301.053 Management Trust for the Benefit of Lockie L. 

Goode” (filed May 3, 2021, signed May 5, 2021)
The supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed in the First Court of Appeals no later than 

Thursday, June 17, 2021. No costs shall be assessed for the supplemental record.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Peter Kelly_________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __June 3, 2021___
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR CORPORATION

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American Superconductor Corporation (the Company) for the period
ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Gregory J. Yurek, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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 operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 7, 2008 |  |  |  | /S/    GREGORY J. YUREK
|                       |  |  |  | Gregory J. Yurek       
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 906

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 Orchid Cellmark Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers
knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                                       
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 6, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ THOMAS A. BOLOGNA                                                                                 
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Thomas A. Bologna Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                               
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: November 6, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ JAMES F. SMITH                                                                                    
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | James F. Smith Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
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.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00757-CV

TEXAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION

v.

CHARLOTTE A. HANSEN AND JAMES LARRY HANSEN

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No 3 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 04-60394-3

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 29, 2015
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 1 of 19 PAGEID #: 7
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 2 of 19 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 3 of 19 PAGEID #: 9
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 4 of 19 PAGEID #: 10
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 5 of 19 PAGEID #: 11
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 6 of 19 PAGEID #: 12
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 7 of 19 PAGEID #: 13
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 8 of 19 PAGEID #: 14
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 9 of 19 PAGEID #: 15
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 10 of 19 PAGEID #: 16
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 11 of 19 PAGEID #: 17
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 12 of 19 PAGEID #: 18
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 13 of 19 PAGEID #: 19
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 14 of 19 PAGEID #: 20
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 15 of 19 PAGEID #: 21
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 16 of 19 PAGEID #: 22
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 17 of 19 PAGEID #: 23
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 18 of 19 PAGEID #: 24
Case: 2:18-cv-00235-JLG-CMV Doc #: 1-1 Filed: 03/21/18 Page: 19 of 19 PAGEID #: 25
<PAGE>   1
                                                               EXHIBIT 11




                        PERKINS FAMILY RESTAURANTS, L.P.
                      COMPUTATIONS OF NET INCOME PER UNIT
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER UNIT DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                            1996          1995          1994
                                          -------       -------       -------
<S>                                       <C>           <C>           <C>
Weighted Average Units Outstanding         10,266        10,246        10,263

Equivalent Restricted Units Based on
 Average Market Price for Period               23            23            12
                                          -------       -------       -------

Weighted Average Equivalent Units          10,289        10,269        10,275
                                          =======       =======       =======

Net Income as Reported                    $13,522       $ 9,796       $12,008

Less: 1% General Partner's Interest           135            98           120
                                          -------       -------       -------

Net Income Applicable to Units            $13,387       $ 9,698       $11,888
                                          =======       =======       =======

Net Income Per unit                       $  1.30       $  0.94       $  1.16
                                          =======       =======       =======
</TABLE>
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION

Darrell W. Stephens, 

Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 1:17cv796 

Warden, Pickaway Correctional 

Institution, Judge Michael R. Barrett 

Respondent. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the 

Magistrate Judge on August 2, 2018 (Doc. 18). 

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C), including 

notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report 

and Recommendation in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 

1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation have been filed. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) of the 

Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the 

Magistrate Judge, the Respondent’s Motion to Transfer Successive § 2254 (Doc. 9) is DENIED. 

Pursuant to the Order issued by the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 2), the Respondent shall file their 

return of writ within sixty (60) days of the entry of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/Michael R. Barrett 

Michael R. Barrett 

United States District Judge
#### Conrad K. Hahn, Appellant, v Martha Stewart, Respondent.

[773 NYS2d 297]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered February 20, 2003, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered February 14, 2003, which, in a purported class action by a shareholder against the corporation’s chairman and chief executive officer, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of standing and failure to state a cause, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from said order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant breached her fiduciary duty to the corporation’s shareholders by reason of her part in an insider trading scandal, resulting in damage to the corporation’s primary asset, defendant’s name, reputation and associated *286goodwill, and damage to the proposed class members in the form of diminution in the value of their shares. The complaint was properly dismissed on the ground that such allegations plead a wrong to the corporation only, for which a shareholder can only sue derivatively, “though he loses the value of his investment” *(Abrams v Donati,*66 NY2d 951, 953 [1985]). “Courts have repeatedly held that an allegation of diminution in the value of stock based on a breach of fiduciary duty gives rise to a derivative action only” *(Hart v General Motors Corp.,*129 AD2d 179, 183 n 2 [1987], *lv denied*70 NY2d 608 [1987], citing, inter alia, *Bokat v Getty Oil Co.,*262 A2d 246, 249 [Del 1970]). No grounds exist for granting leave to replead where plaintiff sold his shares before instituting this action (Business Corporation Law § 626 [b]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### People v Parkhurst,

No. 91006;

Court of Appeals No. 131392.
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

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Data Systems & Software Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the three and nine month periods ended September 30,
2003 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the  "Report"),  I, Yacov  Kaufman,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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,  except as disclosed in
          Part I Item 1 to this report; and

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


  /s/ Yacov Kaufman
----------------------------------
  Yacov Kaufman
  Chief Financial Officer
  March 30, 2004


                                     - 28 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION
RICHARD E. GARABRANDT,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:18-cy-93
CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
v. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

LINTON D. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants,

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Richard E, Garabrandt’s Objection (ECF No.
6) to the Court’s February 22, 2018 Opinion and Order (ECF No. 5) overruling Plaintiff's
Objection (ECF No. 4) to the Magistrate Judge’s February 9, 2018 Order (ECF No. 2). In her
February 9 Order, the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to submit within thirty days a certified
copy of his prison trust found account statement for the six-month period immediately preceding
the filing of the case. (Feb. 9, 2018 Order at 2.) As the Magistrate Judge noted, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(2) requires that Plaintiff make this submission given that he is a prisoner seeking to
bring a civil action without prepayment of fees. (See id. at 1-2.)

In his Objection, Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its February 22 Opinion and Order.
The Court has discretion to reconsider an interlocutory order at any time. See Leelanau Wine
Cellars, Ltd. v. Black & Red, Inc., 118 F. App’x 942, 945—46 (6th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff, however,
has identified no clear error of law, has presented no newly discovered evidence, has provided no
intervening change in controlling law, and has not identified any manifest injustice. Accordingly,

the Court will not exercise its discretion to reconsider the Opinion and Order. See Phillips v.


Teamsters Local Union, No. 3-:05-cv-292, 2007 WL 397011, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2007).
Plaintiff's Objection [ECF No. 6] is OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BArbaI8 L\Z

DATE EDMUNDM. SARGUS, JR.
CHIEF TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE