alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32: Certifications Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934




                    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 the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Global Wireless Satellite
Networks (USA), Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Dennis W. Mee, Chief Executive Officer of Global Wireless
Satellite Networks (USA), Inc., and I, Scott Kostiuk, Chief Financial Officer of
Global Wireless Satellite Networks (USA), Inc. , 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 the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Global Wireless
Satellite Networks (USA), Inc.


April 13, 2004              By:   /s/ Dennis W. Mee
                                  ----------------------------------
                                  Dennis W. Mee
                                  Chief Executive Officer, President


April 13, 2004              By:   /s/ Scott Kostiuk
                                  ----------------------------------
                                  Scott Kostiuk
                                  Chief Financial Officer, Secretary & Treasurer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
documentation 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 Global Wireless
Satellite Networks (USA), Inc. and will be retained by Global Wireless Satellite
Networks (USA), Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

This certification "accompanies" the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Global Wireless Satellite
Networks (USA), Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the
date of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB, irrespective of an general
incorporation language contained in such filing).
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20685-20686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10027]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 30, 2001, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Advanced Lead-Acid Battery 
Consortium (``ALABC'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Electricity of France (EDF),

[[Page 20686]]

Moret sur Loing, FRANCE has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and ALABC intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 15, 1992, ALABC filed its original notification pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 29, 
1992 (57 FR 33522).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 28, 
2000. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on March 23, 2001 (66 FR 16294).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 01-10027 Filed 4-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
EXHIBIT 23.01





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-159211, 333-149281, 333-141660, 333-133332, 333-112728, 333-109809, 333-102509,333-66758 and 333-167533) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-140268 and 333-143989) of PDF Solutions, Inc. of our report dated March 22, 2011 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP




San Jose, California


March 22, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000201511
<NAME> COMPUTER RESEARCH, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,486,924
<SECURITIES>                                   741,146
<RECEIVABLES>                                  861,421
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,000
<INVENTORY>                                     41,958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,165,860
<PP&E>                                       5,312,394
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,019,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,458,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,170,644
<BONDS>                                         76,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,230
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,268,668
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,458,514
<SALES>                                         95,719
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,461,733
<CGS>                                           75,144
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,168,256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,540
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,293,477
<INCOME-TAX>                                   265,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,028,477
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,028,477
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
        

</TABLE>
(23 Civ. Proc. R. 286.)

#### STEWART v. PATON et al.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

October 17, 1893.)

Partition—Cost oe Advertising.

Where a referee appointed to sell in a partition suit advertises the property in addition to the mode required by law, the cost of such additional advertisement cannot be allowed out of the whole proceeds of the sale, but is chargeable to the share of the party who authorized it.

Action by Mary Elizabeth Stewart, as executor of David Stewart, against Thomas Patón and others, for partition. The premises were ordered to be sold by a referee, who advertised the sale-as required by law, and, in addition thereto, inserted the advertisement in other papers, and posted notices. Plaintiff moves to allow the referee to retain the sum paid by him for extra advertisement out of the proceeds of the sale of the premises.

Denied.

James N. Platt, for plaintiff.

Strong & Cadwalader, for defendants.

INGRAHAM, J.

I think that the disbursements of the referee that can be allowed to him out of the purchase money must be limited, under section 3297 of the Code, to the disbursements which a sheriff is authorized to retain out of the proceeds of real estate sold by him upon an execution. Whether or not the court would have the power, prior to - the sale, to authorize advertisements of the sale, in addition to that specifically required by the Code, is not in question. The advertisement directed by the referee was not ordered by the court, and is not such an advertisement as the sheriff is authorized by the Code to make, where the sale is upon an execution. I do not think, therefore, I have any authority to order this advertisement to be paid out of the share of the parties who did not authorize the advertisements to be made, and who now oppose it. The motion must therefore be denied, and the advertisement must be paid for out of the share of the parties who authorized it. No costs.
Exhibit 3.3

                                                                Filed # C7282-00
                                                                    May 23, 2002
                                In the office of Dean Heller, Secretary of State

            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
                                 ENTERNET, Inc.

We, the undersigned President and Secretary of Enternet, Inc. do hereby certify:

      That the Board of Directors of said corporation at a meeting duly convened
and held on the 3rd day of May 2002 adopted a resolution to amended the original
articles as follows:

Article 1 is hereby amended to read as follows:

      That the name of the corporation is Secured Data, Inc.

Article 4 is hereby amended to read as follows:

      The amount of the total authorized capital stock of the corporation is One
      Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) consisting of One Hundred Million
      (100,000,000) shares of Common stock with a par value of $.001 each.

<PAGE>

The number of shares of the corporation outstanding and entitled to vote on an
amendment to the Articles of Incorporation are 11,200,000: that the said
change(s) and amendment has been consented to and approved by the holding at
least majority of each class of stock outstanding and entitled to vote thereon.


                                                /s/ Craig Robson, President
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Craig Robson, President


                                                /s/ Craig Robson, Secretary
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Craig Robson, Secretary

Providence of British Columbia
City of Richmond

      On May 21, 2002, personally appeared before me, a Notary Public,


Craig Robson and Craig Robson
-----------------------------------------------
(Name of person appearing and signing document)

Who acknowledged that they executed the above instrument.


/s/ Malek Allibhai                                        [Notary Stamp]
------------------
Signature of Notary

                                                                  MALEK ALLIBHAI
                                                                   Notary Public
                                                        #201-6411 Buswell Street
                                                          Richmond, B.C. V6Y 2G5
                                                                   Tel: 244-8993
Exhibit 13.2

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), the undersigned officer of sanofi-aventis, a French
société anonyme (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The annual
report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 6, 2008



By:

/s/ Jean-Claude LeroyJean-Claude LeroyExecutive Vice President Finance and Legal(1)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to sanofi-aventis and will be retained by sanofi-aventis and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|(1) | Principal financial officer.
|--- | ----------------------------



1
EXHIBIT
32.1












CERTIFICATION








In
connection with the Annual Report of EncryptaKey, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Louis
Jack Musetti, President & Chief Executive Officer, 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, as of, and for
the periods presented in the Report.




Date: July 30,
    2008
            By:
            /s/
      Louis Jack MusettiName:
            Louis
      Jack MusettiTitle:
            Principal
      Executive Officer, President, Directorand Principal Accounting Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10731

Summary Calendar

CLARENCE HAWKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

S. O. WOODS,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:11-CV-153

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clarence Hawkins appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint. Hawkins, acting pro se and filing on behalf of his deceased

brother, alleged in the district court that the State Classification Committee of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice kept his brother in prison past his

discharge date, failed to notify the records division in a timely manner of the

discharge date, and caused his brother’s death in prison. The district court

concluded that the statute of limitations applicable to Hawkins’s claims had

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 1, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

Case: 11-10731 Document: 00511773291 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2012
No. 11-10731

expired. The district court dismissed Hawkins’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous.

Hawkins’s appellate brief does not address the district court’s reason for

dismissing his claims. Although we apply less stringent standards to parties

proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel and liberally construe

briefs of pro se litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably

comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28. Grant

v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We will not raise and

discuss legal issues that Hawkins has failed to assert; when an appellant fails

to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the

appellant had not appealed that judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Hawkins has failed to

brief any issue, his appeal is frivolous and is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

Hawkins is warned that the filing of repetitious or frivolous appeals may

result in the imposition of sanctions against him. These sanctions may include

dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in

this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2

Case: 11-10731 Document: 00511773291 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2012
## NO. 12

- 14

- 00067

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL KENNEDY,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 87 TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEX AS

MEMORANDUM OPINI ON

PER CURIAM

On March 19, 2014, Appellant Michael Kennedy filed a notice of appeal from the trial

court’s dismissal of his civil rights action. However, the trial court clerk notified this court that

no final judgment has been signed. Therefore , this c ourt notified Appellant, pursuant to Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.2, that the information received in this appeal does not contain a

final judgment or other appealable order. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would

be dismissed if the information received in the appeal was not amended on or before April 21,

2014, to show the jurisdiction of this court. The deadline for amendment has passed, and

Appellant has neither responded to the court’s March 19, 2014 notice or otherwise shown the

jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.2, 42.3.

Opinion delivered April 23, 2014.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 2 3 , 2014

NO. 12

- 14

- 00067

- CV

MICHAEL KENNEDY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 87th District Court

of Anderson County, Texas (T r.Ct.No. 87

- 11917)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the

appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction ; and that this decision

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. , and Hoyle, J.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4852

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES E. GOODE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (2:06-cr-00262)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 23, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl J. Roncaglione, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.

Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Lisa G. Johnston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

Goode’s offense was committed in October 2003. The 2002

Guidelines Manual was applied to avoid ex post facto issues.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James E. Goode pled guilty to receipt of child

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) (2000), and was

sentenced to the mandatory minimum term of five years imprisonment.

The court also imposed a ten-year term of supervised release. See

18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(k) (West Supp. 2007). Goode appeals his

sentence on the ground that the advisory guideline range was

incorrectly calculated. We affirm.

The district court adopted the guideline calculation set

out in the presentence report, overruling Goode’s objections and

finding that the guideline range would have been 37-46 months, but

was increased to the statutory minimum term of 60 months under U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.1(b) (2002).* Goode does not

dispute that he was subject to the 60-month minimum term or that

the guideline range was 60 months pursuant to § 5G1.2(b). He

contends that the court should have applied USSG § 2G2.4

(possession of child pornography) instead of § 2G2.2 (trafficking

in child pornography), and erred in making an enhancement for

distribution under subsection (b)(2)(E). Both issues pertain only

to the initial computation of the guideline range before the

application of § 5G1.1(b). We conclude that the district court

correctly determined that Goode’s guideline range was 60 months and
- 3 -

sentenced him accordingly.

We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district

court. 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears
below hereby constitutes and appoints Mark A. Payne, his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution
for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of REDLINE PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC. for the
twelve months ended March 31, 2002, and all amendments to such Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting
unto said attorney-in-fact and agent, full power and authority to do and perform
each and every act and thing requisite or necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes he might or could do in person,
hereby ratifying and confirming said attorney-in-fact and agent, or his
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.


          DATE                                       SIGNATURE

      June 27, 2003        /s/ David G. Mell
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                    David G. Mell
                                    Director

      June 27, 2003        /s/ Stanley R. Herman
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                    Stanley R. Herman
                                    Director

      June 27, 2003        /s/ Michael J. Degen
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                    Michael J. Degen
                                    Director

      June 27, 2003        /s/ Clyde Fessler
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                    Clyde Fessler
                                    Director