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



CERTIFICATION
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
    SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on
    Form 10-K
    of CHS 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.
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are
    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
    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 our
    supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
    registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
    known to us 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 on such evaluation; andc.
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
    internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
    the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
    registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
    report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
    materially affect, the registrants internal control over
    financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have
    disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
    controls over financial reporting, to the registrants
    auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board
    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a.
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
    design or operation of internal controls over financial
    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
    registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
    report financial information; andb.
    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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Myron Mungin, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 749]—

*576Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Megan Tallmer, J.), entered on or about June 24, 2009, which adjudicated defendant a level two sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly assessed 10 points under the risk factor for forcible compulsion. Even if the initial restraint of the victims was accomplished by deception, the subsequent circumstances of the crime satisfied the definition of forcible compulsion *(see*Penal Law § 130.00 [8] [b]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application for a downward departure *(see People v Mingo,*12 NY3d 563, 568 n 2 [2009]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Versata, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended January 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Alan Baratz, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, hereby certify 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 therequirements 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 as of the date and for the periodsexpressed in the Report. 

 

Date: March 12, 2004
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony F. HICKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50245.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 19, 2007.

Stephen G. Wolfe, Esq., Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Anthony F. Hicks, Adelanto, CA, pro se.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony F. Hicks appeals *pro se*from the district court’s order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s analysis, *see United States v. Townsend,*98 F.3d 510, 512 (9th Cir.1996), and so we affirm.

*747Hicks contends that Amendment 599 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines lowered the sentencing range applicable to his convictions. In order for Hicks to prevail, Amendment 489 would also have to apply retroactively to his conviction, because Amendment 599 did not modify the proviso in application note *2*that determined Hicks’s original sentencing range. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, the Sentencing Commission has not expressly made Amendment 489 retroactive. *See*U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c). Thus, Amendment 599 did not lower the sentencing range applicable to his convictions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hicks’s motion. *See United States v. Lowe,*136 F.3d 1231, 1232 (9th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*747ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Anne Marie Melchiorre, Respondent, v Matthew N. Dreisch, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 892] —

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated June 7, 2011, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability is denied.

In support of her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that she used due care in crossing the street and, thus, that the defendant’s alleged negligent operation of his vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the accident *(see Thoma v Ronai,*82 NY2d 736, 737 [1993]; *Cohn v Khan,*89 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2011]; *Roman v A1 Limousine, Inc.,*76 AD3d 552 [2010]; *Yuen Lum v Wallace,*70 AD3d 1013, 1014 [2010]). The plaintiffs failure to *846meet her prima facie burden required denial of her motion without regard to the sufficiency of the defendant’s opposition papers *(see Yuen Lum v Wallace,*70 AD3d at 1014). Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.2

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm's Consent

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Zoom Technologies, Inc. Affiliates and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form S-3 (File No. 333-171389) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-171744) of our report dated May 23,
2014, with respect to our audit of the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2013, and for the year ended
December 31, 2013, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2013.

/s/ Marcum Bernstein Pinchuk LLP

Marcum Bernstein Pinchuk LLP
New York, New York
May 23, 2014

---
exv10w20









EXHIBIT 10.20




[MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. LETTERHEAD]




(Date)




(Name)

(Address)




Global ID Number: XXX-XX-ACCT



Dear (Name):



Effective (Grant Date), the Board of Directors of Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”)
awarded you the following Restricted Stock Units at a grant value of (Grant Price) per unit upon
the terms set forth below:




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Type of Grant:
	 	Restricted Stock Units
	 

	 	Number of Restricted Stock Units:	 	 
	 

	 	Vesting Schedule:
	 	Alternative A: monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, annual, specified
dates or cliff vesting based upon continued employment
Alternative B: based upon achievement of individual goals
Alternative C: based upon achievement of company-wide and/or
division or business unit performance goals, such as
revenues, earnings, operating income, earnings per share,
share price, gross margin, breakeven or profitability
Alternative D: based upon a combination of the above





This Restricted Stock Units award (this “Award”) has been granted pursuant to, and is controlled
by: (i) the Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. 2003 Long-Term Incentives Plan (the “Plan”); (ii) the
Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. 2003 Long-Term Incentives Plan Award Agreement Restricted Stock Unit
Terms and Conditions (the “Plan Terms”); and (iii) this grant letter (this “Grant Letter”). This
Award shall vest as set forth above. The Plan and the Plan Terms are incorporated into this Grant
Letter as if fully set forth herein.



All documents relating to this Award are available for viewing and printing on the Human
Resources Department Website. To access this information, please go to MyNet, select Directory,
Site Directory, Human Resources, Stock Administration. The documents available for viewing and
printing at this website location are the Plan, the Plan Terms, the most recent Plan Prospectus,
the Company’s most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and the Company’s Insider Trading Policy. If
you choose not to download these documents, if you do not have access to MyNet or if you encounter
problems accessing this site, please contact Stock Administration at (949) 579-4525 or
stock.admin@mindspeed.com to receive paper copies of these documents at no cost. Please read all
documents carefully.



If you have any questions regarding this grant, please contact Stock Administration at (949)
579-4525 or via email at stock.admin@mindspeed.com.




MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
1 –ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KASSIE MERRITT, individually and on

Behalf of all others similarly situated,

 Case No. 6:15-cv-0269-TC

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

YAVONE, LLC, a California limited

liability company, HEALTHY CHOICE

LABS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability 

Company, and GLOBAL PRO SYSTEM, 

INC., a Nevada corporation,

Defendants.

_____________________________ 

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 

48), and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Defendants filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, I have reviewed 

the file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 

Case 6:15-cv-00269-TC Document 52 Filed 12/15/15 Page 1 of 2
2 –ORDER

Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I conclude the report is 

correct.

I adopt the Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 48). Defendants’ motions to 

dismiss, ECF No. 32 and 33, are GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s claim under § 1693e of the 

Electronic Funds Transfer Act is dismissed. The motions are DENIED as to the other claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 15th day of December, 2015.

_____/s/ Michael J. McShane_____

Michael J. McShane

United States District Judge

Case 6:15-cv-00269-TC Document 52 Filed 12/15/15 Page 2 of 2
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1714

To suspend through December 31, 1999, the duty on certain textile

machinery.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 5, 1998

Mr. HOLLINGS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend through December 31, 1999, the duty on certain

textile machinery.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN TEXTILE

4 MACHINERY.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following:
2

S 1714 IS

‘‘ 9902.83.10 Weaving machines

(looms) for weaving fabrics of width

exceeding 30 cm,

shuttle type: power

looms for weaving

fabrics of a width

not exceeding 4.9

m, if imported

without off-loom or

large loom takeups, drop wires,

heddles, reeds, harness frames, and

beams (provided

for in subheading

8446.21.50) .......... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/1999 ’’.

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the date that is 15 days after the date of enactment of

5 this Act.

6 SEC. 2. APPLICATION TO LIQUIDATIONS AFTER 1997.

7 Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of

8 1930 or any other provision of law, upon proper request

9 filed with the United States Customs Service within 180

10 days after the date of enactment of this Act, any entry,

11 or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, of goods

12 described in subheading 8446.21.50 of the Harmonized

13 Tariff Schedule of the United States—

14 (1) made after December 31, 1997, and before

15 the date that is 15 days after the date of enactment

16 of this Act; and

17 (2) with respect to which there would have been

18 no duty if the amendment made by section 1(a) ap19 plied to that entry or withdrawal,
3

S 1714 IS

1 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as if the amendment

2 made by section 1(a) applied to that entry or withdrawal.

Æ
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 37 Filed 02/08/2005 Page 1 of 2

George S May Intl, et al v. Xcentric Ventures, et al Doc. 37

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:04-cv-06018 Document 37 Filed 02/08/2005 Page 2 of 2
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-10472

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

versus

JAVIER LOREDO DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth

(4:96-CV-107-A and 4:93-CR-43-A)

______________________________________________

September 8, 1997

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

Having reviewed the briefs and record, the judgment is

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

 

**METAGroup, Inc**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the filing ofthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the“Report”) by META Group, Inc. (the “Company”), each of the undersigned herebycertifies that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|   |   | /s/ Alfred J. Amoroso                               |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Alfred J. Amoroso                                   |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer               |
|   |   |                                                |
|   |   |                                                |
|   |   | /s/ John A.  Piontkowski                            |   |
|   |   | John A.  Piontkowski                                |
|   |   | Executive  Vice President, Chief  Financial Officer |

 

 

Dated: August 14, 2003

 

1

----
... 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DIVISION 

'·:r&-n c . k-e_ { 03 , 1

r_" , ,./()O d ~~ .. AA 

Civil Case No. l ' 'J . ~_..,V '11\, '-;} 

(to be assigned by Clerk of the Court) 

(Enter full name of plaintiff(s)) 

Plaintiff(s), 

v. 

COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL 

REVIEW OF DECISION BY 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

1. Plaintiff resides at: 

S~reetAd.dress ~ (AJaS~b-J s+ ~C City:&d'-"-£~o'"-'0._,(....,[:__,.__ _____ 0 ____ _ 

County: J cvck:S 6T") 

State: C)fZ. 

Zip Code: 9 ·-::t 5 D I 

Telephone No.: 5o//- LjQ0-6--=1-3 Cf 

2. Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the final decision by the Commissioner of Social 

Security denying his/her application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and/or 

Supplemental Security Income disability benefits. 

P'l:{ ·~ ·~o~Gintiffreceived the decision ofthe Administrative Law Judge on 

Feb q 2-c/S (date) and received notice of the decision or denial of review by the Appeals 

Council on £ell q '2-t>/5 (date). 

4. The final decision of the Commissioner should be (check all that apply): 

Reversed and remanded for an award ofbenefits 

· Reversed and remanded for further proceedings 

Modified 

SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT 

Revised: Aug4, 2010 Page I 

Case 1:15-cv-00423-SU Document 1 Filed 03/13/15 Page 1 of 2
5. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies in this matter, and this Court 

has jurisdiction for judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judicial review by the Court and entry of judgment of such 

relief as may be proper. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Signed this ~ day of /?Jab /)?ae/4 , 20 ~ 

/3 

SOCIAL SECURITY COMPLAINT 

Revised: Aug 4, 2010 

(Signature of Plaintiff(s)) 

Page 2 

Case 1:15-cv-00423-SU Document 1 Filed 03/13/15 Page 2 of 2
**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-QSB of OmniComm Systems, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, being, Cornelis F. Wit, Chief Executive 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:





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







/s/
      Cornelis F. Wit


Cornelis
      F. Wit


President,
      Chief Executive Officer and Director





August
      14,, 2007
Case 1:03-cv-02182 Document 279 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:03-cv-02182 Document 279 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 2
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Temperate Tree Fruit and Vegetable Research: Wapato, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Facilities
                        USDA Laboratory in Wapato, WA
                                    USDA Prosser Worksite
                                    USDA Moxee Farm
                    About UsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Wapato, Washington Temperate Tree Fruit and Vegetable Research People & Locations







Jerald A Gefre
                        Temperate Tree Fruit and Vegetable Research

                        




                        
                        Farmer Motor Vehicle Operator
                        Phone: (509) 575-5904
                        
                        
                        Fax: (509) 575-5904(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6647
LAWRENCE M. BREAKLEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus C. DANIEL LARSEN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-98-366-AM) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: Octcober 15, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence M. Breakley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Breakley v. Larsen , No. CA-98-366-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 3, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED