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



Certification



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 International Shipping Enterprises,
Inc., (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (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: August 15, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/     ANGELIKI
FRANGOU
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|                       |  | 
|Dated: August 15, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/     ANGELIKI
FRANGOU
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer 



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-14-00185- CV

In re Texas De partm ent of Crim inal Ju stice

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The Texas Depa

rtment of Criminal J ustice has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and acc ompany

ing motion for emer g ency relief from the district court’s Marc h 27, 2014 temporar y restra ining order in a pending suit to compel disclosure of information under the Public I nformation Act. The reque stors have filed an emer g ency responsive brief. The ord er co mpels disclosure of the reque sted information to a limi t ed g roup of attorney s, with further limit ations on their use or disclosure of the information. We deny the mandamus petition and dismiss as moot the reque st for
emer g ency

relief
. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.322.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Filed: Mar ch 28, 2014
EX PARTE J.S.

(In re: The matter of G.E.S., a minor child)

2170318

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 31, 2018

Dismissed.
Important! E-file this form in ECF using the appropriate event among these choices: “Stipulation & Proposed 

Order Selecting Mediation” or “Stipulation & Proposed Order Selecting ENE” or “Stipulation & Proposed 

Order Selecting Private ADR.” 

Form ADR-Stip rev. 1-2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff(s) 

v. 

Defendant(s) 

CASE No. 4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS

Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the following 

stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5. The parties agree to participate in the 

following ADR process: 

 Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)

 Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)

 Private ADR (specify process and provider)

The parties agree to hold the ADR session by: 

 the presumptive deadline (90 days from the date of the order referring the case to ADR,

unless otherwise ordered. )

 other requested deadline:

 Date: 

Date: 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Attorney for Defendant

 IT IS SO ORDERED

 IT IS SO ORDERED WITH MODIFICATIONS:

Date: 

U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Note: Magistrate judges do not conduct 

mediations under ADR L.R. 6. To request an 

early settlement conference with a Magistrate 

Judge, you must file a Notice of Need for 

ADR Phone Conference. Do not use this 

form. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR 

L.R. 3-5.

4:17-cv-00204-KAW

J. JASON REYNOLDS, on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated,

DIRECT FLOW MEDICAL, INC., et al.

■

Mediation with Cynthia Remmers at Remmers 

Global, Oakland, California.

■

January 25, 2018 October 25, 2017 /s/ Steven M. Tindall October 25, 2017 /s/ Allan J. Gomes x

10/27/17
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-42145) pertaining to The A Consulting Team, Inc. 1997 Stock Option
and Award Plan and Registration Statements on Form S-3 Nos. 333-38330, 333-42744
and 333-51084, of our report dated February 15, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of The A Consulting Team, Inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP


New York, New York
April 1, 2002
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FINJAN, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (SVK)

ORDER GRANTING FINJAN, INC.'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; 

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. No. 617

Before the Court is Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration (“motion for leave”). Dkt. 617. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, the Court 

hereby GRANTS Finjan’s motion for leave. Finjan’s proposed motion for reconsideration is 

incorporated into its motion for leave. In accordance with this order, Finjan must re-file its motion 

for reconsideration as a separate motion. The Court sets the following briefing schedule:

Event Deadline

Finjan to re-file motion for reconsideration as 

a separate motion

May 15, 2020

Cisco’s opposition to motion for 

reconsideration

May 22, 2020

Finjan’s reply in support of motion for 

reconsideration

May 29, 2020

The Court will inform the parties if oral argument is necessary.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2020

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 620 Filed 05/13/20 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.2


Exhibit 10.2




SIDE LETTER




We, the undersigned, being all the parties to an agreement for the sale and purchase of the entire issued share capital in Newhold Investments Limited dated 11 August 2008 (the “Agreement”) entered into between Feishang Group Limited (the “Vendor”) as the vendor and China Natural Resources, Inc. (the “Purchaser”) as the purchaser, at the request of each of the parties and in consideration of each of the parties agreeing to enter into this side letter and other valuable consideration given by each of the parties, hereby agree that:

1.

in accordance with the provisions of Clause 10.02 of the Agreement:

(a)

Clause 3.01(b) of the Agreement shall be deleted and substituted by the following:

“(b)

the sum of US$27,000,000, minus such amount as shall be required to be deducted from the Consideration pursuant to Clause 3.02, as further part payment of the Consideration shall be payable to the Vendor on or before the date falling on the 1st anniversary of the Completion Date;

(b)

Clause 3.04(b) and the Proviso thereto of the Agreement shall be deleted and substituted by the following:

“(b)

zero or a positive figure, the Retention Amount shall be released and paid by the Purchaser to the Vendor simultaneously with the payment of an amount equivalent to the Net Amount in full and final settlement of the balance of the Consideration,

Provided that this settlement by reference to the Completion Accounts and the determination of the Net Amount pursuant to this Clause 3 shall take place within 10 Business Days of the relevant agreement on the Net Amount or on or before the date falling on the 1st anniversary of the Completion Date whichever is the later or at such other time as the Vendor and the Purchaser may agree.”;

(c)

Clause 5.03(a) of the Agreement shall be deleted; 

2.

all the provisions of the Agreement, as varied by this side letter, and the rights and obligations of each of the parties under the Agreement, as so varied, shall continue to remain in full force and effect and are enforceable in accordance with their respective terms;

3.

unless otherwise defined herein or the context otherwise requires, words and expressions used in this side letter shall have the same meanings respectively given to them in the Agreement; and




1









4.

this side letter shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong.




Dated:        12th January 2009

			
	


/s/ Li Feilie, Chairman and CEO

	 
	


/s/ Wong Wah On Edward, CFO


	For and on behalf of 

Feishang Group Limited 

	 
	For and on behalf of

China Natural Resources, Inc.












2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1070

ISAAC HOWARD OAKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANET RENO, U. S. Attorney General; JAMES S. GILMORE, III, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia; DIRECTOR OF VETERAN’S ADMINISTRATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-97-237-B) Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 25, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isaac Howard Oaks, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Corcoran, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia; Donald Renardo Ferguson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing hiscomplaint in which he sought a service-connected disability pension. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinionand find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Oaks v. Reno , No. CA-97-237-B (W.D. Va. Dec. 15, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Terry James TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0722

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*1250This direct criminal appeal was brought pursuant to *Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Having reviewed the entire record, we affirm the trial court's revocation of Appellant's probation and the resulting judgment and sentence. However, we remand for correction of a scrivener's error in the Order of Revocation of Probation, which states, *inter alia* , that Appellant violated conditions of probation (1) and (5) as alleged in charges VI, VII, and VIII, and that Appellant admitted to those violations. The record reflects that Appellant admitted to violating special condition (2) as alleged in charges I-V. It does not reflect that Appellant admitted to violating conditions (1) and (5) as alleged in charges VI, VII, or VIII, nor did the trial court find at the violation of probation hearing that Appellant violated those conditions. The record also does not reflect that the state attempted to demonstrate a basis to revoke as to those conditions. Rather, the inclusion of those conditions in the order of revocation appears to be a scrivener's error. *See**Kemp v. State* , 135 So.3d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). On remand, the Order of Revocation of Probation should be corrected to reflect that the revocation is based on the condition of Appellant's probation that he admitted to violating.

Makar, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
Carlos FLEITAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D19-244

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 1, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 November 25, 2013

s1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2013

147135

MICHAEL GLOTFELTY and KAREN

GLOTFELTY,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v SC: 147135

COA: 311960

Wayne CC: 10-008335-NH

DARIO MERLOS, D.D.S., DARIO MERLOS,

D.D.S., P.C., and NEW BOSTON DENTAL

CLINIC, P.C.,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 9, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Alejandro APARICIO, Appellant, v. Valerie GREENBERG, a Personal Representative of the Estate of Andrea Kary Greenberg, Appellee.

Nos. 3D18-1025 & 18-0675

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 China Housing & Land Development, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2012 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date indicated below, 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 his 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Dated:August 14, 2012 | By: | /s/ Cangsang Huang                          
|--------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------
|                      |     | Cangsang Huang                              
|                      |     | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                      |     | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF NONRESPONSE BIAS 

STUDIES IN FEDERALLY SPONSORED SURVEYS

Tala Fakhouri, Ph.D. MPH

Summary of the FCSM report was prepared by the FCSM nonresponse bias analysis

subcommittee : Peter Miller, Tala H. Fakhouri, Morgan Earp, Kathryn Downey Piscopo, Steven 

M. Frenk, Elise Christopher, And Jennifer Madans
Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Office of Medical 

Policy (OMP) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
BACKGROUND

• In 2006, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published Standards and Guidelines 

for Statistical Surveys mandating that all federal surveys with a unit response rate (RR) <80% 

conduct an analysis of nonresponse bias (NRB)

• Since 2006, federal surveys have increased activities involving NRB analyses

• However, there’s been a lack of information on how these NRB analyses were conducted, the 

methods used to assess NRB, and the impact of any mitigation strategies to reduce bias
OBJECTIVE

• Conduct a systematic literature review to collect information on NRB studies involving federal 

surveys

• Specifically, the following information was collected for each study identified:

• Characteristics of the surveys examined

• NRB analysis methods used

• Results of the assessment of NRB

• Impact of weighting adjustments on bias reduction
METHODS

Criteria For Including Studies for this Review

NRB studies conducted since the 2006 OMB guidance from the following sources were 

considered for inclusion: 

• Peer-reviewed research papers 

• Published book chapters

• Conference proceedings

• Published government reports or memoranda, and 

• Other grey literature materials including unpublished reports produced by the government, 

and reports produced by academics and the survey industry in print and electronic formats 

not controlled by commercial publishers
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 of Bois d'Arc Energy, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary W. Blackie,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ GARY W.
BLACKIE


Gary W.
Blackie


Chief
Executive Officer


August 8,
2008
Exhibit 32


      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

F. Morgan Gasior,  Chairman of the Board,  Chief Executive Officer and President
of BankFinancial Corporation, a Maryland corporation (the "Company") and Paul A.
Cloutier,  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,
each  certify in his  capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed
the  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  March 31, 2005 (the
"Report") and that to the best of his knowledge:

         1.       the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Sections
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date:  May 27, 2005                       /s/ F. Morgan Gasior
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          F. Morgan Gasior
                                          Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
                                          Officer and President



Date:  May 27, 2005                       /s/ Paul A. Cloutier
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Paul A. Cloutier
                                          Executive Vice President and Chief
                                          Financial Officer




A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CX5363 

REVISED REDACTED VERSION 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 19
CX5363-001

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 2 of 19
CX5363-002

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 3 of 19
PAGE 11 QUALCOMM CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Internal Use ONLY - Restricted Distribution 

Total Operating Margin Summary 

 

TOTAL CY11 CY12 CY13 CY14 CY15 Total

Units (QCT) 

Gross Revenue 

Incentive - -

Net Revenue 

Gross Margin 

Gross Margin %

Eng Costs 

Substitution 

Fixed costs 

Op Margin 

% of Revenue

Per Unit

ASP

Incentive

Gross Margin

Op Margin

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

CX5363-003

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 4 of 19
PAGE 12 QUALCOMM CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Internal Use ONLY - Restricted Distribution 

WCDMA Operating Margin Summary 

•

 

WCDMAonly CY11 CY12 CY13 CY14 CY15 Total

WCDMA Units (QCT) 

Gross Revenue 

Incentive - -

Net Revenue 

Gross Margin 

Gross Margin %

Eng Costs 

Substitution 

Fixed costs 

Op Margin 

% of Revenue

Per Unit

ASP

Incentive

Gross Margin

Op Margin

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

CX5363-004

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 5 of 19
PAGE 13 QUALCOMM CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY Internal Use ONLY - Restricted Distribution 

CDMA/LTE Margin Summary 

CDMA/LTE CY11 CY12 CY13 CY14 CY15 Total

C2K/LTE (QCT) 

Gross Revenue 

Incentive -

Net Revenue 

Gross Margin 

Gross Margin %

Eng Costs 

Substitution - - - - - -

Fixed costs 

Op Margin 

% of Revenue

Per Unit

ASP

Incentive

Gross Margin

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

CX5363-005

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 6 of 19
CX5363-006

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 7 of 19
CX5363-007

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 8 of 19
CX5363-008

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 9 of 19
CX5363-009

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 10 of 19
CX5363-010

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 11 of 19
CX5363-011

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 12 of 19
CX5363-012

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 13 of 19
CX5363-013

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 14 of 19
CX5363-014

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 15 of 19
CX5363-015

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 16 of 19
CX5363-016

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 17 of 19
CX5363-017

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 18 of 19
CX5363-018

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1313-3 Filed 01/14/19 Page 19 of 19