alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report of MetroPCS, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger D. Linquist, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | 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 the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 9, 2006



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Roger D. Linquist                
|    |  | Roger D. Linquist                    
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Ronald Wright, Petitioner, v Walter Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

— Determination unanimously annulled on the law and petition granted *(see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*125 AD2d 923, *Iv granted*69 NY2d 608). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134410 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134410 

 COA: 275787 

Kent CC: 91-057087-FC 

JOHN WILLIAM EFFINGER, III,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 4, 2007 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

December 28, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Jannett Wang, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of DiCon Fiberoptics,Inc.: 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe small business issuer and we have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal controls over financial reporting.   Date: June 28, 2004By: /s/ Jannett Wang         (Signature)   Name: Jannett WangTitle: Vice President of Administration (principal executive officer)
#### City of New York et al., Appellants, v Josephine Cincotta et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*for a permanent injunction, enjoining the defendants from the use, occupancy, maintenance and operation of specified premises as a contractor’s establishment in violation of the New York City Zoning Resolution, New York City Nuisance Abatement Law (Administrative Code of City of New York § 7-701 *et seq.),*and the New York City Building Code (Administrative Code of City of New York § 27-105 *et seq.),*the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated October 11, 1985, as granted their motion for a preliminary injunction only to the extent of enjoining the defendants from operating the subject premises as a contractor’s establishment before 7:00 a.m. on Monday through Friday and after 7:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday pending determination of their application for a variance before the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is granted unconditionally, with the appellants’ limitation of liability pursuant to CPLR 2512 set at $10.

In light of the denial by the Board of Standards and Appeals of a variance to the defendants and the strong prima facie showing made by the plaintiffs that the defendants’ use and operation of the subject premises as a contractor’s estab*245lishment was in violation of New York City’s Zoning Resolution, Building Code and Nuisance Abatement Law, the plaintiffs are entitled to the requested preliminary injunction *(see, City of New York v Bilynn Realty Corp.,*118 AD2d 511, 512-513; *City of Utica v Ortner,*256 App Div 1039; *City of New York v Narod Realty Corp.,*122 Misc 2d 885, 888).

Further, in light of the respondents’ representation that their application for a variance before the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals was denied, and, therefore, "there is no litigable issue left and nothing to argue about”, we limit the appellants’ liability for damages to the nominal sum of $10 *(see,*CPLR 2512). Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10569

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00038-JSM-TBM-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALONIZA J. WILLIAMS, 

a.k.a Cat,

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(March 28, 2017)

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Case: 14-10569 Date Filed: 03/28/2017 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before MARCUS, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

After Aloniza Williams pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a 

firearm, the district court imposed an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career 

Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Williams appeals the district court’s 

decision to classify and sentence him as an armed career criminal, contending that 

the district court erred in finding that three of his prior criminal convictions were 

violent felonies under ACCA. The district court predicated Williams’s ACCA 

enhancement on four convictions for burglary under Florida law.1

 On appeal, we 

affirmed Williams’s sentence, concluding that Florida burglary qualified as an 

ACCA predicate under that statute’s so-called residual clause, United States v. 

Williams, 603 F. App’x 919 (11th Cir. 2015) (unpublished), which the Supreme 

Court subsequently held violated the Constitution’s guarantee of due process, see 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Williams petitioned the 

Supreme Court for certiorari, and that Court granted his petition, vacated our 

opinion affirming his sentence, and remanded for further proceedings.

The government now concedes, and we agree, that Williams’s ACCAenhanced sentence must be vacated because Williams has no predicate convictions 

that support the enhancement. In United States v. Esprit, 841 F.3d 1235, 1240–41 

 1 Only three convictions are required to trigger the ACCA enhancement. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(e)(1).

Case: 14-10569 Date Filed: 03/28/2017 Page: 2 of 3 
3

(11th Cir. 2016), decided after Johnson, this Court held that Florida burglary is not 

a violent felony under ACCA. Williams’s only potential predicate offenses were 

Florida burglary convictions. In light of Esprit, these convictions can no longer 

serve to enhance his sentence.

Accordingly, Williams’s ACCA sentence is vacated, and his case is 

remanded to the district court for resentencing without the ACCA enhancement.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Case: 14-10569 Date Filed: 03/28/2017 Page: 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angel Danilo VASQUEZ-SALGUERO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-10377.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 11, 2011.

Filed April 21, 2011.

Karen S. McDonald, Assistant U.S., USPX — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jeremy Ryan Moore, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Gloria Torres, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: FERNANDEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLS, Senior District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Lesley Wells, Senior District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Angel Danilo Vasquez-Salguero appeals the district court’s application of a sixteen-level enhancement to his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. The district court concluded, without analysis, that Vasquez-Salguero’s prior burglary conviction under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1507 qualified as a crime of violence.

We have previously held that Arizona burglary does not categorically match the generic federal definition. *See United States v. Bonat,*106 F.3d 1472, 1475-76 (9th Cir.1997). Therefore, whether the appellant’s prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violence depends upon application of the modified categorical approach described in *Taylor v. United States,*495 U.S. 575, 602, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990). The district court’s failure to conduct this analysis was plain error. Therefore, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing on an open record pursuant to *United States v. Matthews,*278 F.3d 880, 889 (9th Cir.2002)(en banc).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10009]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: April 25, 2001 at 11 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

Matters To Be Considered

    1. Agenda for future meeting: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. No. 731-TA-924 (Preliminary) (Mussels from Canada)--
briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit 
its determination to the Secretary of Commerce on April 26, 2001; 
Commissioners' opinions are currently scheduled to be transmitted to 
the Secretary of Commerce on May 3, 2001.)
    5. Inv. No. 731-TA-706 (Review) (Canned Pineapple Fruit from 
Thailand)--briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to 
transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary 
of Commerce on May 8, 2001.)
    6. Outstanding action jackets: none.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    Issued: April 17, 2001.

By Order of the Commission.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10009 Filed 4-18-01; 3:38 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
EXHIBIT 31.02

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Keith A. Jones, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of PDF Solutions, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



| |  |                                                                                                                    
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ KEITH A. JONES Keith A. Jones Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance
(Principal Financial Officer)

Date:
March 16, 2009

---



QuickLinks
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0417

_________________ IN RE THE EXPUNGEMENT OF MISDEMEANOR RECORDS OF: WILLIAM JAMES HAMMERQUIST,

Petitioner and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Amy Eddy , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 15 2023

03/15/2023
Case Number: DA 22-0417
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

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 15 , 2020 

# Order

Clerk April 1 5 , 2020

148981 ( 6 7 ) (69)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 148981

v COA: 319642

Muskegon CC: 12

- 062665

- FH

PAUL J. BETTS, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant

.

_________ _____________________________ /

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of amicus curiae Gratiot County

Prosecuting Attorney to share 10 minutes of plaintiff

- appellee ’ s oral argument time is

GRANTED. On further order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the “ Law Professors ” to

file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus b rief submitted on April 10, 2020, is

accepted for filing

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMBINED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SYBRON DENTAL SPECIALTIES, INC. AND AFFILIATES
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            5783
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    87823
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2056
<INVENTORY>                                      74383
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                181407
<PP&E>                                          122126
<DEPRECIATION>                                   66800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  545577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            69876
<BONDS>                                         298482
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      152970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    545577
<SALES>                                         418779
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                418779
<CGS>                                           183821
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   139911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (788)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               25899
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  69936
<INCOME-TAX>                                     28339
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              41597
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     41597
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));                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: September                21, 2005 |                                                                       | /s/ ROBERT                T. FABER |
|                                         |                                                                            |
|                                         | Robert                  T. Faber*Chief Financial                  Officer* |

----
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5773 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building located at 6401 Security 

Boulevard in Baltimore, Maryland, commonly known as 

the Social Security Administration Operations Building, 

as the ‘‘Robert M. Ball Federal Building’’. 

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


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5773 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building located at 6401 Security Boule3 vard in Baltimore, Maryland, commonly known as the So4 cial Security Administration Operations Building, shall be 

5 known and designated as the ‘‘Robert M. Ball Federal 

6 Building’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

10 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

11 a reference to the ‘‘Robert M. Ball Federal Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with BILLS