alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 year ended June 29, 2003 (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 26, 2003



By:

/s/    ALEX C.
HUIAlex C. Hui Chief Executive Officer Pericom Semiconductor Corporation
#### In the Matter of Frank J. Ryan, a Disbarred Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Motion by respondent for (1) reargument of the proceeding which resulted in the order of this *612court dated October 15, 1985 [110 AD2d 249] which resulted in his disbarment, or in the alternative, (2) for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from said order of October 15, 1985.

Motion denied. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson, Bracken and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Exhibit  32.1

                        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  Force  Protection,  Inc., a Colorado corporation (the
"Company"),  does  hereby  certify,  to  such  officer's  knowledge,  that:

The  Quarterly Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Form 10-QSB") 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-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and
results  of  operations  of  the  Company.

Dated:  August  13,  2004



/s/  Michael  Watts
--------------------
Michael  Watts,  Chief  Executive  Officer





Dated:  August  13,  2004


 /s/  Thomas  Thebes
 -----------------
Thomas  Thebes,   Chief  Financial  Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Steven L.Muellner, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Meade InstrumentsCorp.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)               designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)              evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)               all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)              anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: October 15, 2007 |                   |
|-----------------------------|------------------------|
| By:                         | /s/ STEVEN L. MUELLNER |   |
|                        | Steven L.  Muellner    |   |
|                        | *President  and CEO*   |   |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,****ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stacy M. Riffe,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Stacy M.  Riffe      |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |
| Stacy M.  Riffe          |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
| November 14,  2003  |

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of CD&L, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-3321, 333-3323 and 333-47357 of CD&L, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated
March 26, 2004 (April 14, 2004 as to Notes 15 and 17), relating to the
consolidated financial statements of CD&L, Inc. as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2003 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
explanatory paragraphs relating to (i) the adoption of a new accounting
principle and (ii) the application of procedures relating to the restatement
discussed in Note 19 and the transitional disclosures described in Notes 2 and 7
related to the 2001 consolidated financial statements that were audited by other
auditors who have ceased operations and for which we have expressed no opinion
or other form of assurance other than with respect to such restatement and
transitional disclosures) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CD&L,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


New York, New York
April 14, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

m 00-30655

_______________

DIANNE HILL,

Appellant,

VERSUS

U.S. TRUSTEE; EUGENE HASTINGS, Trustee;

FRAN STRANGE, Assistant Trustee; MOREHOUSE GENERAL HOSPITAL,

Appellees.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

DIANNE HILL,

Appellant,

VERSUS

EUGENE HASTINGS, Trustee; FRAN STRANGE, Assistant Trustee;

MOREHOUSE GENERAL HOSPITAL,

Appellees.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DIANNE HILL,

Appellant,

VERSUS

EUGENE HASTINGS,

Appellee.
* Circuit Judge of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

m 99-CV-2113

_________________________

November 13, 2001

Before BALDOCK,* SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:**

In this bankruptcy matter, Diane Hill contests her removal as

trustee, a finding of contempt, and the denial of compensation. We

have reviewed the briefs and applicable portions of the record and

have heard the arguments of counsel. We conclude that neither the

district court nor the bankruptcy court committed reversible error.

The judgment, accordingly, is AFFIRMED.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
 *Notice is hereby given*
                     that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver) as Receiver for the institution listed below intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. Notice of Intent To Terminate Receivership
Fund
Receivership name
City
State
Date of
                             appointment 
                             of receiver10024
PFF Bank and Trust
Pomona
CA
11/21/2008
 The liquidation of the assets for the receivership has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors. Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing, identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201. No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame. *Authority:*12 U.S.C. 1819. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Dated at Washington, DC, on August 3, 2021. James P. Sheesley, Assistant Executive Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2021-16805 Filed 8-5-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before TANG , J. STEPHENS, and GERRITY Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v.
Charles H. MOORE Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Aircraft Handling) Airman Recruit (E

- 1 ), U.S. Navy Appellant

N o. 201900119

Decided: 30 Septemb er 2019. Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

. Military Judge : Captain Arthur W. Record , JAGC, USN. Sentence ad j udged 27 February 201 9 by a special court

- martial convened at Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton, Washington , consisting of a military judge sit ting alone. Sentence approved by convening authority : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 10 months , and a bad

- conduct discharge 1

. For Appellant: Lieutenant C ommander Derek C. Hampton , JAGC, USN

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

1 The Convening Authority suspended confinement in excess of 114 days pursuant to a pretrial agreement.United States v. Moore , No. 201 900 119

2 _________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________
PER CURIAM: After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
T he findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

ROD GER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
# Official Journal C 58A/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 58A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6321 February 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 58A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6321 February 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2020/C 58 A/01 | Vacancy Notice ECA/2020/5 – Health and Safety Officer – 1 post – Presidency – Legal Service (AD function group, grade AD6-AD7) | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Court of Auditors

2020/C 58 A/01

Vacancy Notice ECA/2020/5 – Health and Safety Officer – 1 post – Presidency – Legal Service (AD function group, grade AD6-AD7)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
##### 



Exhibit 10.11
 Summary of Executive Compensation Arrangements
 Named
    
    
    Position
    
    
    Effective Date
    
    
    Base Salary
    
    
    Annual TargetExecutive Officer
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Bonus(% of Salary)1. Jeffrey R. Rodek
    
    
    Executive Chairman
of the Board
    
    
    July 1, 2006
    
    
    $400,000
    
    
    0%2. Godfrey R. Sullivan
    
    
    President and Chief
Executive Officer
    
    
    July 21, 2005
    
    
    $535,000
    
    
    100%3. David W. Odell
    
    
    Chief Financial
Officer
    
    
    July 21, 2005
    
    
    $355,000
    
    
    60%4. Robin L. Washington
    
    
    Chief Financial
Officer
    
    
    January 17, 2006
    
    
    $355,000
    
    
    60%5. Mark D. Cochran
    
    
    Vice President,
General Counsel and
Secretary
    
    
    July 21, 2005
    
    
    $286,000
    
    
    60%6. Heidi M. Melin
    
    
    Chief Marketing
Officer
    
    
    June 13, 2005
    
    
    $260,000
    
    
    60%
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1304 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                Private Calendar No. 14


                                     


105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1304

                          [Report No. 105-646]


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 9, 1997

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                             July 24, 1998

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
                  For the relief of Belinda McGregor.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Belinda 
McGregor shall be held and considered to have been selected for a 
diversity immigrant visa for fiscal year 1998 as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Belinda McGregor as 
provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by one number during the current fiscal year the 
total number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(c) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153 (c)).
                                     





                                                Private Calendar No. 14

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1304

                          [Report No. 105-646]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

                  For the relief of Belinda McGregor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 24, 1998

Committee to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed`
#### William Cody et al., Plaintiffs, v Joseph O'Neill et al., Defendants. Juron & Minzner, P. C., Appellant; Lipsig, Sullivan & Liapakis, P. C., Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs’ former attorneys appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Miller, J.), dated February 25, 1985, which fixed their attorney’s lien at $11,351.31 with interest, out of a total attorney’s fee of $32,432.35, in the settlement of the underlying action.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term arrived at an apportionment of the attorney’s fees in this action after conducting a hearing at which it had ample opportunity to evaluate the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses as well as to consider the experience and background of counsel and the quantity, quality and effectiveness of the legal work performed *(see, Matter of Tillman,*259 NY 133, 136). Upon review of the record, there is no basis upon which to conclude that the sum awarded constituted other than fair and reasonable compensation *(cf. Sammon v Green,*63 AD2d 872). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Luis Bracero, Respondent.

—Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Stolarik, J.), dated November 29, 1984, as granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which sought the suppression of certain oral statements.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from.

Since the defendant was never explicitly advised, after being arrested, that he had the right to consult with counsel prior to and during the course of police questioning, the hearing court properly granted his motion to suppress oral statements made to the police *(see, People v Hutchinson,*59 NY2d 923; *People v Graham,*78 AD2d 831, *affd 55*NY2d 144; *People v Dunnett,*44 AD2d 733). The right to have an attorney present during interrogation is a critical component of the constitutionally mandated preinterrogation warnings. Although the defendant may have been criminally sophisticated and familiar with his rights, "[n]o amount of circumstantial evidence that the person may have been aware of this right will suffice to stand in its stead” *(see, Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436, 471-472). While we acknowledge that there need not *741be a "talisxnanic incantation” of preinterrogation admonitions in order to pass constitutional muster *(see, California v Prysock,*453 US 355, 363), the substance of the requisite warnings must nevertheless be clearly conveyed for a waiver to be deemed effective. Because the defendant was never informed that his right to counsel attached prior to interrogation, the warnings given by the police were constitutionally deficient, and the order is, accordingly, affirmed insofar as appealed from. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper JJ., concur.
#### HOUSTON *v.*GARRETT.

This ease is controlled hy the ruling in the cases of *Mallard*v. *Allred,*106 *Ga.*503 (32 S. E. 588), and *Henderson*v. *Fields,*ante, 547.

June 19, 1915.

Complaint. Before Judge Cox. Worth superior court. May 14, 1914.

*J. B. Williamson*and *Tison & Bell,*for plaintiff in error.

*550Beck, *J.*

To a suit upon a promissory no to brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error the latter pleaded, that the note was given for the purchase-price of certain real estate, the vendor* executing to the maker of the note a bond for title, conditioned to make good and sufficient title-to the property upon payment of the note sued on; that at the time of the making of the note there was an outstanding paramount title, and it is still outstanding, and the plaintiff can not make a good title as contemplated by the bond for title; and should the defendant be required to pay the amount' sought to be recovered, he would have no way to require the plaintiif to execute to him a deed; and the plaintiff could not be made to answer in damages, as the plaintiif is “worth very little and is not worth as much as a $1,600 homestead allowed by law,” and is the head of a family. Upon the trial of the case the court struck the plea.

The court did not err in striking this plea. There is no allegation that the defendant has been or is threatened with eviction. He does not offer.to rescind the trade. He does not show that lie has made any payment of the purchase-money; he does not offer to restore possession of the land. Even if to show insolvency of the plaintiff under these circumstances would be a sufficient plea and answer to the suit, this plea can not be construed as alleging insolvency. To say that a man is worth but little and is not worth $1,600, and is the head of a family, is not the equivalent of alleging in direct terms that he is insolvent. Under the rulings in the cases of *Mallard*v. *Allred,*106 *Ga.*503 (32 S. E. 588), and *Henderson*v. *Fields,*ante, 547. (85 S. E. 741), an elaboration of the ruling here made is entirely unnecessary. Those cases rule the one at bar.

*Judgment, affirmed.*

*Ml the Justices concur.*