alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Emerging Media Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Iurie Bordian, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 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
result of operations of the Company.

                                            /s/ Iurie Bordian
                                            -------------------
                                            Iurie Bordian
                                            Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                            Financial Officer
November 14, 2008
Case 3:05-cr-00292-MHP   Document 66   Filed 05/01/06   Page 1 of 1
Opinion filed May 25, 2017

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-15-00084-CR

__________

HECTOR JOSE SUBIA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 385th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 42,618

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

The jury convicted Hector Jose Subia of aggravated assault by using or 

exhibiting a deadly weapon, aggravated assault of a peace officer by using or 

exhibiting a deadly weapon, and burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit 

aggravated assault. The jury found two enhancement paragraphs to be true and 

assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years and a fine of $5,000 for the

offense of aggravated assault by using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, confinement 

for eighty years and a $10,000 fine for the offense of aggravated assault of a peace 

officer, by using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, and confinement for sixty-five years 
2

and a fine of $10,000 for the offense of burglary of a habitation with the intent to 

commit aggravated assault. Appellant presents one point of error on appeal.

In Appellant’s sole point of error, he argues that the trial court erred when it 

had him appear before the jury dressed in jail clothing during the punishment phase 

of trial. Appellant contends that Appellant’s appearance in jail clothes 

impermissibly infringed upon his presumption of innocence for the commission of 

the extraneous offenses presented and, thus, violated his due process right to a fair 

trial.

The State argues that Appellant has not preserved this point of error for 

appellate review. We agree with the State. When a trial court forces a defendant to 

appear at trial in jail clothes, it might thereby impinge upon the presumption of 

innocence afforded to an accused. Calamaco v. State, 462 S.W.3d 587, 597 (Tex. 

App.—Eastland 2015, pet. ref’d) (citing Lantrip v. State, 336 S.W.3d 343, 351 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.)). However, a defendant who does not desire to 

wear jail attire must timely object. Id. Appellant concedes that he did not at any 

time object to the clothing worn during the punishment phase of trial. Further, there

is no evidence in the record that suggests that the trial court forced Appellant to wear 

jail attire. Accordingly, Appellant has not preserved this point of error for our 

review. Appellant’s sole point of error is overruled.

We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

JIM R. WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE

May 25, 2017

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
cnamex10-2.htm


     

    
      

      

    

    
 

    AMENDMENT
TO CALL OPTION AGREEMENT

    


    THIS
AMENDMENT TO CALL OPTION AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made effective as of
December 18, 2008 by and between Kexuan Yao, a resident of the People’s Republic
of China (“Purchaser”) and Feng Gao, a resident of San Mateo, California
(“Seller”). Seller and Purchaser may collectively be referred to as the
“Parties”.

    


     

    BACKGROUND

     

    A.  Purchaser and Seller are
the parties to that certain Call Option Agreement dated June 27, 2008 (the
"Agreement"); and

     

    B.  The parties desire to
amend certain parts of the Agreement as set forth below.

     

    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
execution and delivery of the Agreement and other good and valuable
considera­tion, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowl­edged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

     

    1. Section 1
of the Agreement is amended by deleting the defined terms “Condition 3” and
“Condition 4” and replacing them with the following defined terms:

     

    “Condition
3” means Armco and its Subsidiaries achieving not less than $4,000,000 in
pre-tax profits, as determined under United States Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles consistently applied (“US GAAP”) for the nine month period year
ending September 30, 2008.

    


    “Condition
4” means Armco and its Subsidiaries achieving not less than $40,000,000 in Gross
Revenues, as determined under US GAAP for the nine month period year ending
September 30, 2008.

     

    2. This
Amendment shall be deemed part of, but shall take precedence over and supersede
any provisions to the contrary contained in the Agreement. All initial
capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as set
forth in the Agreement unless otherwise provided.  Except as
specifically modified hereby, all of the provisions of the Agreement which are
not in conflict with the terms of this Amendment shall remain in full force and
effect.

     

    IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date
first above written.

     

    
      
        
          
            
              
                	
                        Kexuan
      Yao

                         

                         

                        By: /s/ Kexuan Yao

                        Print
      Name: Kexuan Yao

                        Date:
      12/18/08

                         

                      	
                        Feng
      Gao

                         

                         

                        By: /s/
      Feng Gao

                        Print
      Name: _ Feng Gao

                        Date:
      12/18/2008
Case 3:17-cv-00223-RS Document 141 Filed 05/26/17 Page 1 of 1
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ST. PAUL REINSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED LONDON,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

THE FORT MILLER GROUP, INC.

and BEECHE SYSTEMS

CORPORATION,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-1912 BZ

SCHEDULING ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on defendants’

motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer to the

Northern District of New York, Robison-Prezioso, Inc.’s motion

to intervene and the case management conference scheduled for

October 12, 2005, are CONTINUED to November 9, 2005, at 

10:00 a.m., in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal Building, 450

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. 

Defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to

dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer to the Northern

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 47 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

District of New York, is due by October 19, 2005. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that at the same time and place 

defendants shall show cause why sanctions should not be

imposed for their failure to file a timely reply or seek a

continuance in accordance with the Local Rules. Any party

wishing to suggest a sanction shall do so in writing by

November 1, 2005. 

Dated: October 11, 2005

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\ST. PAUL REINSURANCE\SCHEDULING5OSC.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-01912-BZ Document 47 Filed 10/11/05 Page 2 of 2
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

JAMES WEST,

Plaintiff,

v.

PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00238-LHK (HSG)

ORDER REGARDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

OBTAIN COPIES OF SEALED 

DOCUMENTS

Re: Dkt. No. 241

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to provide copies of the following to Plaintiff at 

no charge, given Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status (Dkt. No. 6). 

Docket Number Portion of Document

44 Entire document

45 Entire document

52-1 Page 4

52-2 Pages 2, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

53 Pages 8, 19, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

57 Page 4

58 Pages 2, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

This order terminates docket number 241. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/5/2022

Case 5:17-cv-00238-LHK Document 242 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 1
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

GARY MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF OAKLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00206-JD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

At 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, June 29, 2017, the Court called this case for an initial case 

management conference, which had been noticed and scheduled well in advance. Counsel for 

plaintiff, John L. Burris, Ben Nisenbaum, James Cook and the Law Office of John L. Burris, did 

not appear. Plaintiff’s counsel did not ask to be excused, and the absence was without Court 

approval and in breach of the Local Rules and the Court’s standing order for civil cases.

Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to show cause in writing why the Court should not impose 

monetary or other sanctions for this violation. Counsel are advised that sanctions may include, 

without limitation, a monetary fine, payment of opposing counsel’s reasonable fees and costs for 

attending the conference, attorney discipline, and dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. 

The response is due by 12:00 p.m. on Friday, July 7, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2017 

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge
PLAINTIFF FTC’S RESPONSE

TO BROADCOM MOTION TO SEAL

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK-NMC 

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

Jennifer Milici, D.C. Bar No. 987096 

Daniel Matheson, D.C. Bar No. 502490 

Mark J. Woodward, D.C. Bar No. 479537 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax) 

jmilici@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a 

Delaware corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION’S RESPONSE TO 

BRODCOM’S JANUARY 14, 2019 

MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF 

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION 

TESTIMONY OF SCOTT MCGREGOR 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1299 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 2
 1 

PLAINTIFF FTC’S RESPONSE

TO BROADCOM MOTION TO SEAL

Case No. 5:17-cv-00220-LHK 

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

On January 14, 2019, Broadcom filed a motion to seal portions of the videotaped 

deposition testimony of former Broadcom CEO Scott McGregor that Qualcomm has disclosed in 

advance of Tuesday, January 15 (Trial Day 6). ECF No. 1297. On Saturday, January 12, 2019, 

FTC counsel asked Broadcom counsel to include the following statement in any Broadcom 

motion to seal the designated testimony: “The FTC believes that the information disclosed 

through the designated testimony is general in nature, but recognizes that the Court previously 

granted a motion to seal similar testimony. (ECF No. 1139.) On that basis, the FTC does not 

oppose Broadcom’s sealing request.” The FTC stands by its position. 

Dated: January 14, 2019 

Respectfully submitted, 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

/s/ Jennifer Milici 

Jennifer Milici 

Daniel Matheson 

Mark J. Woodward 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

(202) 326-2912; (202) 326-3496 (fax) 

jmilici@ftc.gov 

Attorneys for Federal Trade Commission 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1299 Filed 01/14/19 Page 2 of 2
Jay STROUP, DOC #H39668, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3171

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 19, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 24

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Know all those by these presents, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Robert N. Tenczar, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for such person and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2004 of MMI Products, Inc. under the Exchange Act of 1934, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the undersigned as a director of MMI Products, Inc., and any and all amendments or supplements to the Form 10-K, and to file the same together with any exhibits thereto. The undersigned further grants unto said attorney-in-fact and agent, acting alone, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, and hereby ratifies and confirms all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, or his substitutes or substitute, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



|SIGNATURE                | TITLE                
|------------------------ | ---------------------
|/s/ Julius S. Burns      | Chairman and Director
|Julius S. Burns          |                      
|/s/ Thomas F. McWilliams | Director             
|Thomas F. McWilliams     |                      
|/s/ Carl L. Blonkvist    | Director             
|Carl L. Blonkvist        |                      
|Date: April 2, 2004      |
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Richard D. Falcone, the principal financial officer of The A Consulting
Team, Inc., certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this amendment to annual report on Form 10-K of The A
     Consulting Team, Inc., the registrant; and

2.   Based on my knowledge, this amendment to annual report does not contain any
     untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
     necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
     which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
     covered by this annual report.


Date:    April 21, 2004

                                     /s/ Richard D. Falcone
                                     ----------------------
                                     Richard D. Falcone
                                     Chief Financial Officer
amend1.htm


     

     

    

      
        
          EXHIBIT
10.04  

        

        
           


          
            

          

        

        
           


        

      


      Amendment
No. 1 to

      Non-Employee
Director

      Restricted
Stock Award Plan

       

      


      Darling International Inc., a Delaware
corporation, hereby amends the Non-Employee Director Restricted Stock Award Plan
approved March 9, 2006 (the “Non-Employee Director
Plan”) as follows, effective as of January 15, 2009.

       

       

      
        	
                1.  

              	
                The
      third paragraph of the Non-Employee Director Plan is amended and restated
      to read in its entirety as follows:

              


      

       

      Date of Award:  The
fourth business day after the Company releases its annual financial results for
its last completed fiscal year.

       

       

      
        	
                2.  

              	
                The
      fourth paragraph of the Non-Employee Director Plan is amended and restated
      to read in its entirety as follows:

              


      

       

      Number of Shares
Granted:  $20,000 divided by the Fair Market Value per Share on
the third business day after the Company releases its annual financial results
for its last completed fiscal year; provided, however, that if the maximum
aggregate Share limit for issuance to Non-Employee Directors under the Plan is
exceeded on the Date of Award, each Non-Employee Director shall receive his
pro-rata share of the then-remaining Shares issuable under the
Plan.

       

       

      Except as expressly amended above, the
Non-Employee Director Plan shall remain in full force and effect and is herby
ratified and confirmed.
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 Optionable, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brad P. O’Sullivan , Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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.
 
 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.
   November 12, 2010/s/ Brad P. O’SullivanChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART BLACKBERRY LIMITED'S ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN TRIAL EXHIBITS

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART BLACKBERRY 

LIMITED'S ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN TRIAL 

EXHIBITS

Re: Dkt. No. 1111

The Court finds that QX9252 meets the compelling reasons standard for sealing, and thus 

grants Blackberry Limited’s motion to seal QX9252. 

Blackberry Limited seeks to seal the entirety of its license agreement with Qualcomm, 

JX0093. The Ninth Circuit has held, and this Court has previously ruled, that “pricing terms, 

royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” of patent licensing agreements plainly 

constitute trade secrets, and are thus sealable. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th 

Cir. 2008). Blackberry Limited’s request seeks to seal far more than this limited information and 

thus is overly broad. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Blackberry Limited’s 

motion to seal JX0093. If Blackberry Limited wishes to file an appropriately narrowly tailored 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1122 Filed 01/04/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART BLACKBERRY LIMITED'S ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN TRIAL EXHIBITS

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

version of JX0093, it must do so by January 5, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1122 Filed 01/04/19 Page 2 of 2
Philip James HAMMAC, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3041

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HAKIM ROBINSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 129 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of September, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE**

 

**OFFICEROF GENERAL PARTNER OF HILAND PARTNERS, LP**

 

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with thereport on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2009 ofHiland Partners, LP (the “Company”) and filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph L. Griffin, ChiefExecutive Officer and President of Hiland Partners GP, LLC, the general partnerof the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                 The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: May 11, 2009 | /s/ Joseph L. Griffin                  |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                    | Joseph L. Griffin                      |
|                    | Chief Executive Officer  and President |

 

----
EX PARTE Henry ROBINSON

1161143 (CR-16-0769)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.