alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.01

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 Annual Report of PDF Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2010 (the "Report"), I, John K. Kibarian, 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, to my knowledge:



/s/ JOHN K. KIBARIAN John K. Kibarian President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


Date:
March 18, 2010

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Powell, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree for shooting Patrick Alexander, the boyfriend of Barbara Whetstone, defendant’s former girlfriend. During the course of Alexander’s testimony, he was permitted to testify, over objection, about a *919prior incident in which defendant had shot Whetstone and her then-husband. The court overruled the defense objection on the ground that the testimony was admissible to show the state of mind of the victim. That was error. Under *People v Molineux*(168 NY 264) and its progeny, evidence of other crimes committed by a defendant may not be admitted unless the probative value of such evidence on a material issue outweighs its prejudicial tendency to demonstrate defendant’s criminal propensities. Evidence that defendant had previously been charged in a similar shooting obviously tended to show defendant’s assaultive character. That evidence does not fall within any of the exceptions to the *Molineux*rule. The basis for admission of that evidence, that it demonstrated the victim’s state of mind, is not within the exceptions to the *Molineux*rule and, in any event, the victim’s state of mind was not relevant. Admission of that evidence was also in violation of the rule of *People v Ventimiglia*(52 NY2d 350), which requires the People to obtain an advance ruling where they intend to introduce evidence of other crimes by defendant. Not only did the People fail to obtain a *Ventimiglia*ruling, but they were precluded by the court’s *Sandoval*ruling from inquiring into that incident on cross-examination. Contrary to the People’s argument that the error was harmless, there can be no doubt that defendant was prejudiced by proof that he had previously engaged in behavior very similar to that charged in this case. It was also error, although harmless in view of the other proof, to permit the investigating officer to testify that Alexander had identified defendant as his assailant. That error should be avoided on retrial. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.— assault, first degree, and another charge.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>                     5


<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               41
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             17
<OTHER-SE>                                      179,053
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        652
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      3
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    237
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (343)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (4)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (339)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (339)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.20)



</TABLE>
#### Marilyn Kurtz, Respondent, v Morton M. Kurtz, Appellant.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ambrosio, J.), dated April 21, 1988, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of divorce entered February 2, 1988, upon his default in appearing, and (2) an order of the same court, dated June 20, 1988, which denied his motion for reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 20, 1988, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 21, 1988 is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of divorce is granted to the extent of vacating the financial provisions thereof, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an inquest as to the financial issues, on the following conditions: (1) the defendant shall pay $7,500 costs to the plaintiff personally, within 10 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry; (2) the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff $2,500 per month for pendente lite maintenance and $500 per month for pendente lite child support, retroactive to the date the judgment appealed from was entered with any arrears also to be paid within 10 days after determination by the Supreme Court of the amount due; (3) the defendant shall continue to reside away from the marital premises; and (4) the defendant shall, within 10 days after the service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, serve and file a sworn statement of net worth in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4) ; in the event these conditions are not complied with, the order dated April 21, 1988, is affirmed, with one bill of costs; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment entered February 2, 1988, shall stand as security pending entry of a new judgment.

It is clear that the defendant’s default was inexcusable. Nevertheless, in light of the meager support in this record for the large financial awards in the judgment of divorce and the preliminary showing that the defendant may not have the means to comply therewith, the defendant’s default should be opened to the extent of allowing an inquest on the economic provisions of the judgment *(Otto v Otto,*150 AD2d 57). We note that the temporary support provisions set forth in our decision are not to be viewed as binding upon the Supreme *839Court in setting permanent support, and that the plaintiff may apply to that court for counsel fees. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### CAMPION v. PARKER.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Appeal—Review—Weight op Evidence.

A verdict will not be disturbed merely because the court would have found the facts differently.

Appeal from Westchester county court.

Action by Thomas Campion against S. Webber Parker. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

*828Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

F. W. Leonard (Wilson Brown, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

John J. Crennan, for respondent.

DYKMAN, J.

This action was commenced in a court of a justice of the peace, for work, labor, and services performed by the plaintiff for the defendant. The cause was there tried be: fore a jury, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict for $159. Upon appeal to the county court there was a new trial before the jury, and a verdict for $159 again. Now the defendant has appealed from the judgment to this court. All the questions involved are questions of fact, and two juries have found them substantially alike. o Jf the testimony of the plaintiff is taken for the true facts, the judgment is supported. The only persons who could furnish the facts were the plaintiff and the defendant, and the testimony of both went to the jury. It is not sufficient to justify a reversal that we would have found the facts differently. The jury is ever the absolute arbiter of the facts in cases like this, and the appellate tribunal is powerless. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ricardo GARCIA-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-41206

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ricardo Garcia-Garcia, Chicago, IL, pro se.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricardo Garcia-Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Garcia-Garcia has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Garcia-Garcia’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Garcia-Garcia’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6185 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

122 North Holderrieth Boulevard in Tomball, Texas, as the ‘‘Tomball 

Veterans Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

Mr. MCCAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 122 North Holderrieth Boulevard in Tomball, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Tomball Veterans Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TOMBALL VETERANS POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 122 North Holderrieth Boule6 vard in Tomball, Texas, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Tomball Veterans Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6185 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Tomball Veterans 

3 Post Office’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
   This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from Electric
   Lightwave, Inc.'s Financial Statements for the six months ended June 30, 1998
   and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         12,638
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               24,390
<PP&E>                                         396,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                 31,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 395,003
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          49,803
<BONDS>                                        146,656
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       497
<OTHER-SE>                                     185,437
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   395,003
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               41,500
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  19,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11,774
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (32,184)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,471)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (26,713)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      2,817
<NET-INCOME>                                   (29,530)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.59)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO\
                 13 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 Enviro Voraxial Technology,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alberto DiBella, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 13 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.


Date: August 11, 2004


/s/ Alberto DiBella
-------------------
Alberto DiBella
Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1











Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the Board of Directors of


China Natural Gas, Inc.





We consent to the use of our report dated March 10, 2010, except for the effects on the consolidated financial statements of the restatement described in Note 2 and 15, as to which the date is September 30, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of China Natural Gas, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income and other comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, which report appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of China Natural Gas, Inc.  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3/A (No. 333-160150), and Form S-8 (No. 333-166422) of the report described in the previous sentence appearing in the annual report on Form 10-K of China Natural Gas, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.





/s/ Frazer Frost, LLP





Brea, California


June 14, 2011





135 South State College Boulevard, Suite 300 | Brea, California 92821 | 714.990.1040 | frazerfrost.com


Los Angeles and Visalia, CA


FRAZER FROST, LLP is an independent firm associated with Moore Stephens International Limited.
# L_2013145EN.01S00301.xml

| 31.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 145/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 145/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           (265)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (7)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,773
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,966
<PP&E>                                           6,593
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,562
<BONDS>                                          3,712
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,099
<OTHER-SE>                                       (911)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,462
<SALES>                                          5,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,034
<CGS>                                            3,640
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (7)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 164
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    269
<INCOME-TAX>                                        63
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                206
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       206
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act**

 

The certification set forth below is being submittedin connection with AES Red Oak, L.L.C’s annual report on Form 10K (“theReport)  for the purpose of complyingwith Section 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and 1350 of Chapter 63 ofTitle 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

A. W. Bergeron, the President and Thomas P. Keating,the Chief Financial Officer of AES Red Oak, L.L.C., each certifies that, to thebest of his or her knowledge:

 

1.               the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of AES Red Oak, L.L.C.

 

Date:  March 24,2005

 

 
|   | /s/  A.W. Bergeron       |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: A.W.  Bergeron     |
|   | President                |
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/  Thomas P. Keating   |   |
|   | Name: Thomas P.  Keating |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
USFA will showcase our many prevention outreach materials, data reports and responder health and safety publications.

Dr. Lori Moore-Merrell will give the Keynote Remarks Tuesday, February 20, 2024 from 8:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. CST.

## USFA resources

Download or order

Download or order

Download or order
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




                   REPORT AND CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Lazare Kaplan International Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated
August 19, 2003 included in the 2003 Annual Report to Stockholders of Lazare
Kaplan International Inc.

Our audits also included the consolidated financial statement schedule of Lazare
Kaplan International Inc. and subsidiaries listed in Item 15(a)2. This schedule
is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the consolidated
financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material
respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in

         1)    Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-40225) and Registration
               Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-92077) which relate to the Lazare
               Kaplan International Inc. 1997 Long Term Stock Incentive Plan,
               and

         2)    Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement (Form
               S-8, No. 333-52303), which relates to the Lazare Kaplan
               International Inc. 401(k) Plan for Savings and Investment

of our report dated August 19, 2003 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the
preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Lazare Kaplan International Inc.



                                           ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
August 25, 2003