alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1





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 quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 (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.





Date:    November 12, 2002



By:

/s/    ALEX C. HUIAlex C. Hui Chief Executive
Officer
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. OLIVIA R ODR IGUEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50507

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-05233-DM S M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia D ana M . Sa

braw, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Olivia R odrigue z a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 1 20-m onth se nte nc e im pose d following her guilty -ple a c onvic tion for im porta tion of m e tha

m phe tam ine and a iding a

nd a be tting, in viola

t ion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a nd 960, a nd 18 U.S.C . § 2. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 

# FIL ED D EC 30 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(1967), R odrigue z ’ s c ounse l h a s file d a brie f stating tha

t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a

m otion to withdra

w a s c ounse l of re c ord. W e have provide d R odrigue z the opportunity to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d . R odrigue z ha s wa ive d he r right to a p pe a l he r se nte nc e . Our indepe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble issue a s to theva lidity of the wa ive r. Se eUnite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a c c ordingly dism iss thea

p pe a l. S e eid. at 988. R odrigue z ’ s pro se m otion to se t a side the Ande rs brie f, a ppoint ne w c ounse l, a nd e xte nd the de a dline for filing a ne w brie f is DE NIE D . C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. DISM I SSE D.

1 2 - 5 0 5 0 7 2
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2131 Engrossed in House (EH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2131

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the ``J. Waties 
                       Waring Judicial Center''.

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

SECTION 1. J. WATIES WARING FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``J. Waties Waring Judicial Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``J. Waties Waring Judicial Center''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2131

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the ``J. Waties 
                       Waring Judicial Center''.
```
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Mark R. WHITCOMB, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant.

No. 30,648.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

Nov. 28, 1975.

*Colonel Alton H. Harvey, Captain Bernadine T. Harrity,*and *Captain Robert D. Jones*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Donald W. Hansen*and *Major Steven M. Werner*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

At a trial by special court-martial, the accused pleaded guilty to violating a general regulation by possessing certain explosive *231devices.1 Although no complaint was made at trial, counsel for the accused now urge that the specification under the charge fails to allege an offense in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 892.

Our examination of the described directive2 indeed verifies that it expresses only policy, and not proscription, applicable to individuals. The language encompassing the accused’s acts is contained in the section denominated “POLICY” and lists many activities that are sought to be controlled absent authorizing action by competent authority. Furthermore, under the heading “RESPONSIBILITIES” it contemplates “implementing the provisions of the directive” by subordinate commanders of the promulgating authority and provides that the “[implementing instructions . will contain specific prohibitions and action directives affecting individual conduct.”3 Considering the regulation “in its entirety,” we are impelled to the conclusion that it does “not qualify as a general order for the purpose of an Article 92 prosecution.” *United States v. Nardell,*21 U.S.C.M.A. 327, 329, 45 C.M.R. 101, 103 (1972).

The decision of the U.S. Army Court of Military Review is reversed and the findings and sentence are set aside. The Charge and its specification are dismissed.

1

. The plea was pursuant to a pretrial agreement containing a provision condemned in *United States v. Holland,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 442, 50 C.M.R. 461, 1 M.J. 58 (1975).

2

. United Nations Command/United States Forces Korea Policy Directive No. 3-13, paragraph 3g (Aug. 31, 1970).

3

. *Id.*at paragraph 9a.
# C_2021330EN.01000201.xml

| 17.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10362 — KKR/CD&R/Cloudera)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 330/02)

On 10 August 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10362. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10362. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 9, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20644

Summary Calendar

THE COCA COLA CO.; NIKE, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC.;

WARNER BROS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; VIACOM INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

versus 

NATIONAL BUSINESS FORMS AND PRINTING; ET AL., 

Defendants, 

versus 

R. PERRY MCCONNELL, 

Appellant. 

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-3213

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

R. Perry McConnell, former counsel for National Business

Forms and Printing (NBFP), appeals the district court’s order

requiring him to pay $11,000 in sanctions following the

settlement of this civil litigation. 
No. 05-20644

-2-

Although the plaintiffs moved for sanctions under FED. R.

CIV. P. 11(b), it is not clear from the record whether the

district court imposed sanctions solely on that basis. Further,

although the district court determined that McConnell’s conduct

amounted to a misuse of litigation, the basis for that

determination is not clear from the record. We are therefore

unable to conduct a meaningful review of the district court’s

order. See Copeland v. Wasserstein, Perella & Co., Inc., 278

F.3d 472, 484-86 (5th Cir. 2002).

We vacate the district court’s order imposing sanctions and

remand for an explanation of whatever ruling the district court

might make on the sanctions issue on remand. We leave to the

sound discretion of the district court the determination of what

further proceedings, if any, may be necessary.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.34


                      AMENDMENT NO. 1 (THE "AMENDMENT") TO
                          EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
      UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS INC. ("UNIVISION") AND C. DOUGLAS KRANWINKLE
                          (THE "EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT")

                                December 31, 2000


To:      C. Douglas Kranwinkle
         c/o Univision

Dear Doug:

         You and Univision agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

         1. TERM. The Term of the Employment Agreement is extended through
December 31, 2003, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions
of the Employment Agreement.

         2. SALARY. Your annual Base Salary rate will be: Six Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($600,000) for the annual period from January 1, 2001 through December
31, 2001; Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000) for the annual period from
January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002; and Six Hundred Thousand Dollars
($600,000) for the annual period from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003.

         3. OTHER. Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and
conditions in the Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect, and
the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed.

         4. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT. Upon execution by you and Univision,
this Amendment will become effective as of the date first provided above.

                                         UNIVISION COMMUNICATIONS INC.



                                         By: /s/ George W. Blank
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                George W. Blank
                                                Chief Financial Officer

/s/ C. Douglas Kranwinkle
---------------------------
C. Douglas Kranwinkle
#### Urban Justice Center et al., Appellants, v Eliot Spitzer, as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 10, 2007;

decided May 1, 2007

Motion to substitute Governor Eliot Spitzer in place of former Governor George Pataki as a party defendant herein granted. On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without *959costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
No. 75-1621.

#### Slovak *v.*Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion to strike memorandum for respondent and certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                         CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT
                         AND THE 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 the Annual Report of Hand Brand Distribution, Inc. (the
"Company"), I, Antonio Milici, M.D., Ph.D., President and Chief Executive
Officer (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 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, as amended; and

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

Date:   April 14, 2004


By: /s/ Antonio Milici
    Antonio Milici, M.D., Ph.D., President



                                       23
#### In the Matter of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

Submitted March 26, 2007;

decided March 29, 2007

Motion by New York State Board of Real Property Services for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief may be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
**EXHIBIT
14.1**
  
 March 30,
2005
  
  **Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
  The Board
of Directors
 RADCOM
Ltd.
 Tel
Aviv
 Israel
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (File
No. 333-07964, No. 333-13244, No. 333-13246, No. 333-13248, No. 333-13250, No.
333-13252, No. 333-13254, No. 333-14236 and No. 333-111931) on Form S-8 and in
the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-115475) of RADCOM Ltd. of
our report dated March 30, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
RADCOM Ltd. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive loss and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004,
which report appears in the December 31, 2004 Annual Report on Form 20-F of
RADCOM Ltd.
  
 
 */s/Somekh
      Chaikin*Somekh
      ChaikinCertified
      Public Accountants (Isr.)A
      member of KPMG International
GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC

,

Appellant,

v.

JULIE POOSER a/k/a JULIE ANN

POOSER, et al.

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FI LED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1820

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 22, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County

. Kelvin C. Wells , Judge

.

John D. Cusick of Phelan Hallinan Diamon d & Jones, PLLC, Ft. Lauderdale;

Kimberly N. Hopk ins of Shapiro, Fishman & Gaché, Tampa, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS

, C.J., and RAY and KELSEY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      10,046,647
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,551,734
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,035,252
<PP&E>                                       8,894,041
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,438,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,554,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,137,138
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    48,637,756
<OTHER-SE>                                (30,322,336)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,554,761
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,316,039
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               34,968,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,892,996
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,545,090)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,222,163)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,322,927)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                582,084
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,905,011)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.80)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         113,576
<SECURITIES>                                    18,186
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,693
<INVENTORY>                                     14,688
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,277
<PP&E>                                          14,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,713
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 170,566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,056
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,163
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   170,566
<SALES>                                         60,667
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,667
<CGS>                                           35,108
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   233
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,715
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,995
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,995
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

Order 

April 16, 2021

162778(54)

162779

DELANEY LONSWAY, CAMERYN 

LONSWAY, MICHAEL LONSWAY, 

and SUSAN LONSWAY, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

SC: 162778

v COA: 350759

Washtenaw CC: 18-000857-NH

YALE UNIVERSITY, YALE UNIVERSITY 

SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, and ALLEN E. 

BALE, M.D., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

JESSICA N. EVERETT, and ELENA 

MARTINEZ STOFFEL, M.D., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_______________________________________

DELANEY LONSWAY, CAMERYN 

LONSWAY, SUSAN LONSWAY, and 

MICHAEL LONSWAY, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

SC: 162779

v COA: 350775

Washtenaw CC: 18-000153-MH

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN REGENTS, 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, and 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH 

SYSTEM, 

Defendants-Appellants.

_______________________________________/
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 16, 2021

2

Clerk

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for the temporary admission of out-ofstate attorney Peter A. Hessler to appear and practice in this case under MCR 8.126(A) is 

GRANTED.
* 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 forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11379 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES DONOVAN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-062-Y

- - - - - - - - - - July 17, 1997 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Donovan appeals his conviction for conspiracy to transport a certain alien within the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See United States v. Alix , 86 F.3d 429, 435 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.