alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1

                     Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications

I, Steven L. Sample, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Acacia Automotive, 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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure control and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d--15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

     a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
            disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my
            supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
            registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
            to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
            period in which this report is being prepared;

     b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
            and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
            the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of
            the end of the period covered by this report based upon such
            evaluation; and

     c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
            control over financial reporting that occurred during the
            registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or
            is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
            control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
            or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
            reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)       Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
         employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting.




Date:    April 2, 2007                     By: /s/ Steven L. Sample
         ----------------                 --------------------------------
                                          Steven L. Sample
                                          Chief Executive Officer and
                                          Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this annual report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
twelve months ended July 1, 2006 (the Report), I, Alex C. Hui, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

September 14, 2006



By:

/s/ Alex C. HuiAlex C. HuiChief Executive OfficerPericom Semiconductor Corporation
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Butler, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered June 6,1983, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. This appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements (Groh, J.).

Judgment affirmed.

At approximately 2:30 p.m. on August 11, 1982, Officer Richard Messerschmitt and his partner responded to a radio call of a burglary in progress. When they arrived at the scene, a fellow officer gave Messerschmitt a detailed description of the two burglars which had come from a private citizen who provided a basis for the information given. After about four minutes of searching the area in their car, the officers saw two men, one of them the defendant, who fit the description exactly. The two men ran when Officer Messerschmitt identified himself as a police officer and told them to halt, and defendant was arrested. by Messerschmitt after a short pursuit. Upon searching defendant after the arrest, the officer recovered, among other things, a change purse, containing money, which was shortly thereafter identified by the complainant. After being given his *Miranda*warnings, defendant waived his rights and voluntarily stated that “I was in there but I didn’t do anything; George took the stuff”.

*405Defendant’s contentions on appeal that his statements were triggered by improper police conduct or were obtained in violation of his rights are without support in the record *(People v Brooks,*110 AD2d 650). Furthermore, we find that the officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant. No challenge was made to the reliability of the information provided by Messerschmitt’s fellow officer *(People v Ward,*95 AD2d 233, 239-240), and the record supports a finding that Messerschmitt had probable cause to believe that defendant had in fact committed a crime *(People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 233; *People v Cantor,*36 NY2d 106).

Defendant contends that the court erred in accepting his guilty plea without making inquiries concerning statements made by him during the plea allocution. By failing to apply to the court of first instance to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, the defendant has not preserved any issue of law as to the sufficiency of the plea allocution *(People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Mattocks,*100 AD2d 944). In any event, the record discloses that the allocution was sufficient *(People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Nixon,*21 NY2d 338, *cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York,*393 US 1067).

In addition, there is no indication in the record that defendant lacked meaningful representation by counsel *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146; *People v Bonk,*83 AD2d 695).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### Astghik HAKOBYAN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72555.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 19, 2011.

Artem M. Sarian, Esquire, Sarian Law Group, APLC, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.

District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher C. Fuller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Ha-kobyan’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Astghik Hakobyan, a native of Iran and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision de*141nying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*458 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Hako-byan’s challenge to the IJ’s denial of CAT relief, her claim based on nationality, and her contention that the IJ violated due process by failing to include the Department of State’s country report in the administrative record, because she failed to exhaust these issues before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

The record does not compel the conclusion that Hakobyan’s encounters with Armenian authorities rise to the level of persecution. *See Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir.2006); *Prasad v. INS,*47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995) (being hit in the stomach, kicked from behind, and questioned during a brief six-hour detention did not compel a finding of persecution). Additionally, the record does not compel the conclusion that Hako-byan has a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Gu,*454 F.3d at 1022 (record did not compel finding a well-founded fear of persecution where the only evidence of any ongoing interest in petitioner after he left the country was that authorities sought to interview him without threatening him or his family in any way). Accordingly, Hakobyan’s asylum claim fails.

Because Hakobyan failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye,*453 F.3d at 1190.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Foster *v.*Hearn.

January 12, 1915.

Complaint. Before Judge Freeman. Heard superior court. September 26, 1913.

*B. B. Blackburn,*for plaintiff.

*Frank S. Lofiin*and *D. B. Whitaker,*for defendant.

Beck, J.

No material error is made to appear in those portions of the court’s charge complained of, nor in the rulings of the court touching the admission or exclusion of evidence.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, G. J., absent.*
#### Rome Hardware Company *v.*Cuzzort.

June 25, 1915.

Rehearing denied July 21, 1915.

Claim. Before Judge Wright. Floyd superior court. April 1, 1914.

*Henry WalTeer,*for plaintiff. *Denny & Wright,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

The evidence authorized the verdict finding the property not subject; and the special grounds of the motion for new trial, in so far as they present any question for decision, are without merit. '

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
EXHIBIT 31.3

PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR
CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Alex C. Hui, certify
that:

| | 1. |  | I have reviewed this
      annual report on Form 10-K/A of Pericom Semiconductor 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.

|Date: October 14, 2015             
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|/s/ Alex C.
      Hui              
|Alex
      C. Hui                  
|Chief Executive Officer            
|Pericom Semiconductor
  Corporation

- 32 -

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 30367 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
KAREEM MCKINNON, also known as Kareem Olajuwon McKinnon , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:15

- CR

- 172

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kareem McKinnon was convicted of one charge of conspiring to
distribute cocaine and sentenced to serve 96 months in prison and a four

- year term of supervised release . Now, he argues that the district court clearly erred by finding that he was a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy and imposing a corresponding three

- level upward adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b).

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 9, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-30367 Document: 00515026691 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/09/2019No. 17

- 30367

2 Because he objected to the disputed adjustment, review is for clear error. See United States v. Cabrera , 288 F.3d 163, 173 (5th C ir. 2002). A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible when viewed in context of the
entire record. United States v. Cisneros

- Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008)

. Review of the record shows that McKinnon exercised control ov er the pecuniary assets of the organization, directed another member of the conspiracy to safeguard these assets, and also directed this individual as to how she should behave while transporting assets of the organization. Accordingly, the record shows tha t the district court did not clearly err by imposing the disputed adjustment. See United States v . Rodriguez

- Lopez , 756 F.3d 422, 435 (5th Cir. 2014); See United States v. Delgado , 672 F.3d 320, 345 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). AFFIRMED. Case: 17-30367 Document: 00515026691 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/09/2019
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiaries of**

**OYO Geospace Corporation**

Geospace Technologies, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

Geospace Technologies Corporation, a Delaware corporation 

Geospace Technologies CorporationAzerbaijan Branch, an Azerbaijan company 

Geospace Engineering Resources International, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

Geospace Finance Corp., a Texas corporation 

Concord Technologies, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

OYOG, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

OYOG Limited Partner, LLC, a Texas limitedliability company 

OYOG Operations, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

OYO Geospace China, a Chinese company 

OYO Geo Space Canada, Inc., an Alberta corporation

OYO Instruments, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

OYO Instruments, Europe Limited, a United Kingdom company 

OYO Geospace J.V., LP, a Texas limitedpartnership 

OYO-GEO Impulse International, LLC, a Russian limited liability company
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,970
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,449
<ALLOWANCES>                                       503
<INVENTORY>                                     19,660
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,186
<PP&E>                                          28,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,336
<BONDS>                                            956
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            54
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,288
<SALES>                                         65,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,823
<CGS>                                           38,425
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (97)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  59
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,266
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,592
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,674
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,674
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of East Ramapo Central School Dis*646trict, Respondent, v East Ramapo Teachers Association, Appellant.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate an arbitration award, the East Ramapo Teachers Association appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), dated December 7, 1984, which granted the application and denied its cross application to confirm the award.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, application denied, and cross application to confirm granted.

The East Ramapo Teachers Association filed a grievance, claiming that by changing the first school day of the 1982-1983 year from a half to a full day of student attendance, the school district had violated their collective bargaining agreement and caused the teachers to work beyond their normal work day. The arbitrator determined that article VIII, paragraph B of the agreement, providing that the 1982-1983 calendar be "in the same form and structure” as the 1976-1977 calendar, was violated by the school district’s action. Even if his determination constituted an erroneous construction of the agreement, it cannot be said to have been irrational. Therefore the determination must be allowed to stand *(see, Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn.,*41 NY2d 578, 582).

Although a violation of strong public policy may serve to warrant the setting aside of an arbitration award *(see, Matter of Sprinzen [Nomberg],*46 NY2d 623, 629-630), the remedy awarded here violates no such policy. It was determined, not irrationally, that the teachers found it necessary to work beyond their normal workday in order to prepare to provide meaningful instruction as required, as well as to handle administrative tasks. When we accept that determination, we must permit the arbitrator to effect a remedy that will compensate the teachers. Such compensation is for extra work performed, and is therefore not a gift of public money. "[A]n arbitrator may 'grant any relief reasonably fitting and necessary to a final determination of the matter submitted to him’ ” *(Matter of North Colonie Cent. School Dist. [North Colonie Teachers’ Assn.],*60 AD2d 496, 498, *affd 46*NY2d 965, quoting from *Pavilion Cent. School Dist. v Pavilion Faculty Assn.,*51 AD2d 119, 123, *lv dismissed*40 NY2d 845). Mollen, P. J., Lazer and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Thompson and Niehoff, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the order for reasons stated by Justice Stolarik at Special Term.
```
**                        EXHIBIT 32.2**
```

```
 
```

```
 
```

```
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
```

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

```
**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
```

```
 
```

```
                    I, Phillip Michael Hardy, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of eLinear, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year period ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such  Form 10-KSB fairly  presents in all material respects the financial condition and results  of  operations of eLinear, Inc.
```

```
 
```

```
Date:  July 11, 2006
```

```
 
```

```
 
```

```
 
```

```
By:  _/s/ Phillip Michael Hardy_____
```

```
        Phillip Michael Hardy
```

```
        Chief Financial Officer
```
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-1502) pertaining to the 1985 Incentive Stock Option Plan,
the 1994 Incentive Stock Option Plan, the 1995 Director Stock Option Plan, the
1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1995 Stock Option Plan and non-
statutory stock options granted to directors and officers of IDX Systems
Corporation of our report dated February 5, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of IDX Systems Corporation included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 1997