alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

 

**PERICOM SEMICONDUCTORCORPORATION**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER 

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/A for the period ended December 31,2002 (the “Report”), I, Michael D. Craighead, Chief Financial 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 myknowledge: 

 

(1) the Report fully complies withthe 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 operationsof the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

NO. WR-40, 402-02

EX P ART E FR

ANK P HIL LI P M CNABB

, Appl icant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A WRIT OF HAB EA S CORP US

CAUSE NO. CR18-0455- 01 I N THE 415TH DI STRI CT COURT

F ROM P ARK ER COUNT Y

P er cur iam

.

O P I N I O N

A ppl i can t was co n v i ct ed o f po s s es s i o n o f a co n t ro l l ed s ub s t an ce wi

t h i n t en t t o del i v er m o re

t h an f o ur gram s

, l es s t h an t wo h un dred gram s

, an d s en

t en ced t o s i

x t y -f i v e y ears ’ i m pri s o n m en t

. T h e

Sev en t h Co urt o f Ap p e a l s af

f i rm ed h i s co n

v i ct i o n

. McNabb v. State

, No

. 07-19- 00225-CR (T ex

.

A pp. — A m ari l l o

, A ug. 12, 2020). A

ppl i can t f i l ed t h i s appl i cat i o n f

o r a wri t o f h ab eas co rpus i n t h e

co un t y o f co n v i ct i o n

, an d t h e di s t ri ct cl erk f o rwarded i

t t o t h i s Co urt

. See T E X

. C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

.

art

. 11. 07.

A ppl i can t co n t en ds t h at appel l at e co un s el f ai l ed t o t i m el y i n f o rm A ppl i can t t h at h i s co n

v i ct i o n

h ad b een af

f i rm ed an d adv i s e h i

m o f h i s ri gh

t t o f i l e a pr o s e pet i

t i o n f o r di s cret i o n ary rev i ew. Ba s ed

o n t h e reco rd, t h e t ri al co urt h as det erm i n ed t h at A

ppl i can t was n o t t i

m el y n o t i f i ed o f t h e af

f i rm an ce2

o f h i s co n

v i ct i o n an d was depri

v ed o f h i s ri gh

t t o f i l e a pet i t i o n f o r di s cret i o na r y r e vi e w

, an d,

t h eref o re, A ppl i can t i s en t i t l ed t o an o ut -o f

-t i m e pet i t i o n f o r di s cret i o n ary rev i ew.

Re l i ef i s gran

t ed. E x par te Cr

ow

, 180 S. W

. 3d 135 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp. 2005). A

ppl i can t m ay

f i l e an o ut -o f

-t i m e pet i t i o n f o r di s cret i o n ary rev i ew o f t h e j udgm en t o f t h e Sev en

t h Co urt o f A

ppeal s

i n caus e n um b er 08-19- 00225-CR. Sh o ul d A ppl i can t deci de t o f

i l e a pet i t i o n f o r di s cret i o nary

rev i ew, h e m

us t f i l e i t wi t h t h i s Co urt wi

t h i n t h i rt y day s f ro m t h e dat e o f t h i s Co urt ’ s m an dat e.

Co pi es o f t h i s o pi

n i o n s h al l b e s en

t t o t h e T ex as Depa

rt m en t o f Cri m i n al J us t i ce–C o rr ect i o n al

In s t i t ut i o n s Di v i s i o n an d t h e Bo ard o f Pardo n s an d Paro l es

.

Del i v ered: A pri l 14, 2021

Do n o t pub l i s h
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Montpeirous, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered March 25, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A decision with respect to a recusal motion is generally a matter of personal conscience *(People v Smith,*63 NY2d 41, 68, *cert denied*469 US 1227, *reh denied*471 US 1049; *People v Harris,*117 AD2d 881, 882). The mere fact that the Judge who decided a pretrial *Sandoval*motion also presided at trial did not constitute an abuse of discretion. "[Ajbsent a showing of prejudice, the Judge, by virtue of his learning and experience, is presumed to have considered only the competent evidence adduced at trial in reaching his verdict” *(People v Lombardi,*76 AD2d 891; *accord, People v McKinley,*124 AD2d 752). Moreover, the court’s refusal to recuse itself after determining the inappropriateness of a proposed plea agreement does not deprive a defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v Smith,*108 AD2d 763). Under the circumstances, where the record demonstrates that the trial court presided in a fair and impartial manner and the defendant was in no way prejudiced, the Trial Judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to recuse himself.

The defendant’s extensive criminal history clearly justified the sentence imposed. We decline to exercise our discretion to reduce the sentence in the interest of justice *(see, People v Joseph,*110 AD2d 716; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Harwood, JJ., concur.
# C_2021099EN.01000601.xml

| 23.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/6

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 concerning restrictive measures against Myanmar/Burma apply

(2021/C 99/05)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

The legal basis for this processing operation are Council Decision 2013/184/CFSP (2), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/483 (3) , and Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 (4), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/480 (5).

The controller of this processing operation is the Department RELEX.1.C in the Directorate-General for External Relations – RELEX of the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC), that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Decision 2013/184/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2021/483, and Regulation (EU) No 401/2013, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/480.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in Decision 2013/184/CFSP and Regulation (EU) No 401/2013.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the exercise of the rights of the data subjects such as the right of access, as well as the rights to rectification or to object will be answered in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Without prejudice to any judicial, administrative or non-judicial remedy, data subjects may lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

---

(1)  OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 111, 23.4.2013, p. 75.

(3)  OJ L 99 I, 22.3.2021, p. 40

(4)  OJ L 121, 3.5.2013, p. 1.

(5)  OJ L 99 I, 22.3.2021, p. 15

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alfonso Hernandez, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 419]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.), rendered January 19, 2011, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant correctly contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable. “[A] waiver of the right to appeal will not be enforced unless it was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made” *(People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 280 [1992]). “This determination must be made in the first instance by the trial court, which is in the best position to assess all of the relevant factors, including the reasonableness of the bargain, and the age and experience of the accused” *(People v Bradshaw,*76 AD3d 566, 568 [2010], *affd*18 NY3d 257 [2011]; *see People v Callahan,*80 NY2d at 280; *People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]). “While there is no requirement that the trial court engage in any particular litany in order to satisfy itself that these standards have been met, a knowing and voluntary waiver cannot be inferred from a silent record” *(People v Callahan,*80 NY2d at 283).

Here, the record does not sufficiently demonstrate that the defendant validly waived his right to appeal, because the County Court failed to ensure that the defendant grasped the minimal information pertaining to the appeal waiver that it provided during the plea colloquy *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 260 [2011]). Accordingly, in the absence of a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal, the defendant retained his right to challenge his sentence as excessive *(cf. People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

*784Moreover, the defendant’s claim that he was deprived of the constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and thus constitutes a “ ‘mixed claim[ ]’ ” of ineffective assistance *(People v Maxwell,*89 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011], quoting *People v Evans,*16 NY3d 571, 575 n 2 [2011], *cert denied*565 US —, 132 S Ct 325 [2011]). It is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel *(cf. People v Crump,*53 NY2d 824 [1981]; *People v Brown,*45 NY2d 852 [1978]). Since the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety *(see People v Freeman,*93 AD3d 805 [2012]; *People v Maxwell,*89 AD3d at 1109; *People v Rohlehr,*87 AD3d 603, 604 [2011]). Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Lott, *JJ.,*concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 20.2


                   INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT ON COMPLIANCE


Board of Directors
WFS Financial Inc

We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States, the consolidated statement of financial condition of WFS
Financial Inc and Subsidiaries (WFS) as of December 31, 2000 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for
the year then ended, and have issued our report thereon dated January 22, 2001.

In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to
believe that WFS failed to, in all material respects, comply with the terms,
covenants, provisions or conditions of the Sale and Servicing Agreements for WFS
Financial Auto Loans, Inc. dated March 1, 2000, May 1, 2000, August 1, 2000 and
November 1, 2000 between Bankers Trust Company, Chase Manhattan Bank, and WFS
insofar as they relate to accounting matters. However, it should be noted that
our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of
noncompliance.

This report is intended for the use and information of the Board of Directors
and management of WFS, Bankers Trust Company and Chase Manhattan Bank and should
not be used for any other purposes.



                                   /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                   ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Los Angeles, California
January 22, 2001
JONATHAN PARKER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

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 FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-0483

Opinion filed March 3, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Jonathan Parker, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004). 

ROBERTS, C.J., WINOKUR and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant 

vs. 

ROBERT CHARLES HULETT

Respondent. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket Number: 2023-0384

MISLE Activity ID: 7716598 

WITHDRAWAL FROM DOCKET

The Coast Guard initiated an administrative proceeding by filing a Complaint on October 24, 

2023, seeking a revocation or suspension of Respondent’s Merchant Mariner Credential. 

On Nov 20 , 2023, the Coast Guard filed a Notice of Withdrawal from docket as: 

Respondent completed a Voluntary Surrender Agreement and Coast Guard respectfully 

withdraws this administrative proceeding in accordance with 33 CFR § 20.311(a)(2) 

This matter is removed from the docket and closed without prejudice effective this date. The 

Coast Guard reserves the right to file a new Complaint in this matter.

Done and Dated November 27, 2023 at 

Baltimore, MD

 

____________________________ 

Cheri Morin

Administrative Support Assistant

U.S. Coast Guard 

By Direction of the Chief Administrative Law Judge
Exhibit 10.9 


 


Undertaking
to Take Measures to Cover Dilution of Current Returns


 


In
view of the fact that Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Issuer”) intends to apply for an initial public
offering of shares and listing on the STAR Market, JinkoSolar Investment Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Company”),
as the controlling shareholder of the Issuer, will safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the Issuer and all shareholders,
and in accordance with the relevant regulations of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, promote the implementation of the Issuer’s
return-filling measures, and make the following undertaking:


 


While
the Company is the controlling shareholder of the Issuer, the Company shall not, in excess of its shareholder capacity, interfere in
the Issuer’s business and management activities, and shall not encroach on the Issuer’s interests.


 


For
and on behalf of


 


JinkoSolar
Investment Limited (Seal):


 


By:
/s/ Li Xiande


 


Date:
June 21, 2021
#### In the Matter of Judy Kleinhans, Respondent, v David Salisbury, Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated at Special Term, Aloi, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Aloi, J. — stay arbitration.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.
# C_2023161EN.01002001.xml

| 5.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/20

---

P9_TA(2022)0376

EU-Ukraine Agreement on the carriage of freight by road

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 November 2022 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the carriage of freight by road (11050/2022 — C9-0299/2022 — 2022/0200(NLE))

(Consent)

(2023/C 161/03)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (11050/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (11050/2022),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and Ukraine (10151/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and Ukraine (10151/2022),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 91 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0299/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 91 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C9-0299/2022),

| — | having regard to Rules 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 105(1) and (4) and Rule 114(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0263/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0263/2022),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Albert T. Ward, Appellant.

— Weiss, J.

On January 13, 1983, defendant was sentenced to a term of five years’ probation upon his plea of guilty to burglary in the third degree. Approximately two months later, defendant absconded and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Later that year, defendant was convicted in Florida on felony robbery and grand theft charges and was sentenced to a three-year term of imprisonment. In March 1985, defendant was returned to New York and arraigned on the violation of probation. A declaration of delinquency was entered on April 15, 1985. Thereafter, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge, and was sentenced to a term of 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment.

*859On this appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that the sentence was unduly harsh and excessive. We disagree. Defendant explained that he absconded to Florida in order to avoid charges emanating from an assault incident in February 1983, which charges were ultimately withdrawn. The fact that defendant may have been wrongfully charged, however, does not justify his complete disregard for his probation obligations. Defendant has a lengthy criminal history and the serious transgressions outlined above confirm that he is no longer a viable probation candidate. Under the circumstances, we discern no abuse of discretion on County Court’s part in imposing a sentence within the statutory guidelines *(see, People v Trevor QQ.,*123 AD2d 465; *People v Stanton,*104 AD2d 707). Moreover, the record confirms that defendant was given ample opportunity to express his position at sentencing.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss, and Levine, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1949 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1949

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 2015

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide for the consideration and submission of site and design 
proposals for the National Liberty Memorial approved for establishment 
                      in the District of Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Liberty Memorial 
Clarification Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN STANDARDS FOR COMMEMORATIVE WORKS IN 
              ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL LIBERTY MEMORIAL.

    Section 2860(c) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 (division B of Public Law 112-239; 40 U.S.C. 8903 
note) is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
following: ``, except that, under subsections (a)(2) and (b) of section 
8905, the Secretary of Agriculture, rather than the Secretary of the 
Interior or the Administrator of General Services, shall be responsible 
for the consideration of site and design proposals and the submission 
of such proposals on behalf of the sponsor to the Commission of Fine 
Arts and National Capital Planning Commission.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 16, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Richard Hunt, Plaintiff, v Ciminelli-Cowper Co., Inc., et al., Defendants. Ciminelli-Cowper Co., Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Phoenix Insurance Company et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for reargument denied. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Martoche, JJ.
Fourth Department,

September, 1987

(September 30, 1987)

#### Kathleen Moran, Respondent, v Ignatius S. Bertola et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Since plaintiff failed to submit any affidavit of merit in opposition to the motion pursuant to CPLR 3216, it was an improvident exercise of discretion for Special Term to deny defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint *(see, Salch v Paratore,*60 NY2d 851, *rearg denied*61 NY2d 759; *Walker v Town of Lockport,*109 AD2d 1102, *affd*65 NY2d 840; *McDonald v Song Mountain,*125 AD2d 1006). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gossel, J.—dismiss complaint.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, 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 the Quarterly Report of ILEX Oncology, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Jeffrey H. Buchalter, President and 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, 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 Company. /s/ JEFFREY H. BUCHALTER  
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to ILEX Oncology, Inc. and will be retained by ILEX
Oncology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.