alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of ACL Semiconductors Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I,
Kenneth Lap-Chan, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                        
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for
the periods presented.
|

|Date:  
April 17, 2007 |  | /s/ Kenneth Lap-Yin Chan  
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------
|                       |  | Kenneth Lap-Yin Chan      
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer of
|                       |  | ACL Semiconductors Inc.   

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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

---
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Michael H. Watson, District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for Southern Ohio, Columbus, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PRINCESITA TALUCOD PAHUTAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-75633

Agency No. A072-172-463

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted May 13, 2011

San Francisco, California

Before: HUG and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and WATSON, District Judge.** 

Princesita Talucod Pahutan (“Pahutan”), a native and citizen of the

Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying

her motion to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have

FILED

MAY 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of

a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we

deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pahutan’s motion to reopen

on the ground that she failed to show she was prejudiced by her former counsel’s

conduct. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 899–90 (holding that prejudice results when

the performance of counsel “was so inadequate that it may have affected the

outcome of the proceedings”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Even assuming that Pahutan could demonstrate that her prior counsel was

ineffective, the evidence presented in support of her motion to reopen was

insufficient to establish a prima facie case for cancellation of removal. Although

the evidence showed that Pahutan’s mother is elderly and frail, the evidence also

showed that she is cared for by Pahutan’s brother, and, as acknowledged by

Pahutan’s counsel at argument, Pahutan’s mother continues to live with her

brother. We thus conclude that the evidence Pahutan submitted is insufficient to

establish that her legal permanent resident mother would suffer “exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship” should Pahutan be removed. See 8 U.S.C. §

1229b(b)(1)(D). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
Barbara A. KUPERSMIT, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 16-453.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Denied.
# C_2011013EN.01001402.xml

| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Christine Kleist

(Case C-356/09) (1)

1

(Social policy - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Directive 76/207/EEC - Article 3(1)(c) - National rules facilitating the dismissal of workers who have acquired the right to draw their retirement pension - Objective of promoting employment of younger persons - National rules setting the age conferring entitlement to a retirement pension at 60 years for women and 65 years for men)

2011/C 13/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

Appellant:

Respondent: Christine Kleist

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC — National rules setting the retirement age at 60 years for women and 65 years for men and facilitating the dismissal of employees when they reach that age — Dismissal by a public employer of a woman aged 60 years and entitled to retire, on the grounds of a desire to promote the employment of younger people

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that national rules which, in order to promote access of younger persons to employment, permit an employer to dismiss employees who have acquired the right to draw their retirement pension, when that right is acquired by women at an age five years younger than the age at which it is acquired by men, constitute direct discrimination on the grounds of sex prohibited by that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.

1

---
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23.1
 
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of Perclose, Inc. of our report dated April 25, 1997, included in the 1997
Annual Report to Stockholders of Perclose, Inc.
 
    Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Perclose, Inc.
listed in Item 14(a). 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 financial statement schedule referred to above, 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 the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-56 and 333-17977) pertaining to the 1992 Stock
Plan, 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and 1995 Director Option Plan of
Perclose, Inc. of our report dated April 25, 1997, with respect to the 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 Perclose, Inc.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
San Jose, California
June 13, 1997
Charles C. WALDO, et ux., petitioners, v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al.

No. 15-1449.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: WILLIAM E. HENNER 

DOCKET NUMBER: 181 

DATE: MARCH 27, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: CEASE AND DESIST ORDER 

Docket No. 181 

Name: William E. Henner 

Effective March 27, 1972 

Order 

Effective immediately, respondent William E. Henner shall cease and desist 

from making trades on or subject to the rules of a contract market otherwise 

than by open and competitive methods. 

Done at Washington, D. C. 

MAR 27 1972 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Judicial Officer 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
EX-10.3



 EXHIBIT 10.3 

EAGLE MATERIALS INC. 

SPECIAL SITUATION PROGRAM 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 
 1.
The Eagle Materials Inc. Special Situation Program for Fiscal Year 2017 (the “SSP” or the “Plan”) shall be funded by: (i) 0.35% of Eagle Material Inc.’s operating earnings, as determined by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (“Committee”); (ii) the portions of subsidiary company and corporate annual incentive compensation bonus pools not paid out (not earned); and (iii) the portion of the subsidiary companies
long-term compensation plans not paid out (not earned). All full-time employees of Eagle Materials Inc. (“Eagle” or the “Company”) or a subsidiary company will be eligible to receive an SSP award. 

 

	 	A.	An SSP award is intended to recognize outstanding individual performances during the current fiscal year based on contributions that dramatically improve the Company’s profitability or worth.


  

	 	B.	An SSP award may also be made to individuals at Eagle or at subsidiary companies whose operating profit has been adversely affected by market conditions in order to recognize superior performance of the participants
at those companies. 

  

	 	C.	SSP funds not awarded may be retained by the Company for use in future fiscal years. 


2. SSP awards may be recommended by subsidiary company Presidents, Eagle EVP’s and/or the Eagle Chief Executive Officer
(“CEO”). The approval of the Eagle CEO is required for all SSP awards; provided, that an SSP award to any senior executive officers who are required to make disclosures under Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(“Executive Officers”), shall require the approval of the Committee. 
 3. The SSP shall be administered by the CEO, who shall
have full and exclusive power to interpret the Plan and to adopt such rules, regulations and guidelines for carrying out this Plan as the CEO may deem necessary or appropriate in the CEO’s sole discretion. All decisions of the CEO shall be
binding and conclusive on the participants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any matter affecting an SSP award to an Executive Officer (including, without limitation, any interpretation of the Plan or the adoption of any rules, regulations or
guidelines affecting an award to an Executive Officer) shall be approved by the Committee. Any decision by the Committee with respect to an Executive Officer shall be final and binding. 

4. This Plan and all determinations made and actions taken pursuant hereto, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Texas, without reference to any conflicts of law principles thereof that would require the application of the laws of another jurisdiction.
Daniel STAHL, petitioner, v. HIALEAH HOSPITAL, et al.

No. 16-98.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-17-00301-CV 

In the Interest of Y.R., a Child § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

From the 323rd District Court 

of Tarrant County (323-103717-16) 

February 15, 2018 

Opinion by Justice Kerr 

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________ 

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3732

___________

Gabriel W. Mills, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

David Laser, Circuit Court Judge, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Second Judicial Circuit; Brent Davis, *

Prosecuting Attorney, Second Judicial * [UNPUBLISHED]

Circuit; Carla Powell, Deputy *

Prosecuting Attorney, Second Judicial *

Circuit; Mike Everett, Attorney at Law; *

Poinsett County; Arkansas State *

Hospital; L. D. Gibson, Poinsett *

County Public Defender; Thomas E. *

Fowler, Attorney at Law, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 1, 2004

Filed: September 7, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

2

See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971).

-2-

Gabriel W. Mills appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal, under the Younger2

abstention doctrine, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction in light of

ongoing state proceedings. See Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, Ark., 163

F.3d 475, 479 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th

Cir. R. 47B, but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, see Anderson v.

Schultz, 871 F.2d 762, 766 (8th Cir. 1989) (dismissal without prejudice is appropriate

when court abstains under Younger).

______________________________
Honorable T. 0.Walton, President

Agricultural &Mechanical College of Texas College Station, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-4131 Re: Items 273 and 274, ofHouse Bill 272, Acts Regular Session, Forty-seventh Legislature, asprovided on twelve months basis. Your letter ofOctober 14th states that the appropriation provided forA. EM. College for the current biennium fails to indicate inconnection with that portion thereof providing the clerical force of the School ofArts &Science, that the appropriations for such clerical force are on atwelve months basis.. You note that all appropriations are for nine months except when indicated otherwise, and ask the opinion of this department upon the question: Is the State Comptroller authorized topay vouchers for items 273 and 274 on atwelve months rather than anine months basis.

We do not know where you obtained your information to the effect that the appropriation forA. &M. College fails to provide specifically for the clerical force of the School of Arts &Science on atwelve months basis.

We have this morning examined the enrolled bill in the office of the Secretary of State, to-wit, House Bill 272, Acts Forty-seventh Legislature, Regular Session. The portion of the bill which concerns your inquiry provides as follows:

"Clerical force -School ofArts &Science (12months) "273. Stenographer . . .$l,OOO.OO - $1,000.00Honorable T. 0.Walton, President, Page 2

"274. Stenographer . . .$l,OOO.OO - $1,000.00 "275. Stenographer . . .$1.000.00 - $1,000.00 Inaccordance, therefore, with the express provisions of the enrolled bill, your question is answered in the affirmative. Yours very truly APPROVED OCT 22, 1941 /s/ Grover Sellers FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS /s/ Richard W.-Fairchild Assistant RWF:ej APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE ByBWB, Chairman
No. 667, Misc.

#### Clark *v.*Eidson, Warden.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-54938, No. 333-43090, No. 333-90725, No. 333-54936, No. 333-117507, No. 333-135598) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Option Plan, 1999 StockOption Plan, 1999 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, PaylinX Corporation 2000 Stock Option Plan, and 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of CyberSource Corporation, of our reports dated March 12, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of CyberSource Corporation, CyberSource Corporation management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofCyberSource Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

 

San Jose, California 

March 12, 2007
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, David W. Cathell, ChiefFinancial Officer, certify, that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fulton Bancshares Corporation.

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thequarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this quarterly report.

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

(a) designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b) evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterlyreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) disclosed in this quarterlyreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

 

(a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 9,  2005 | By:                                                | /s/David W.  Cathell |   |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|               | David W.  Cathell ,                                |
|               | Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
David Leon STOKES, II, petitioner, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 16-6473.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                                                          
<ARTICLE>                       5                                               
<CIK>                           0000860744                                      
<NAME>                          GEODYNE INST/PENSION ENERGY INCOME LTD PSHP P-4 
                                                                                
<S>                             <C>                                             
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                                           
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998                                     
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998                                     
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1998                                     
<CASH>                                284,492 
<SECURITIES>                                0 
<RECEIVABLES>                         234,667 
<ALLOWANCES>                                0 
<INVENTORY>                                 0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      519,159 
<PP&E>                              8,229,628 
<DEPRECIATION>                      7,021,475 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      1,727,312 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       0 
<BONDS>                                     0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0 
<PREFERRED>                                 0 
<COMMON>                                    0 
<OTHER-SE>                          1,727,312 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        1,727,312 
<SALES>                               240,392 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      247,501 
<CGS>                                       0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         112,981 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       134,520 
<INCOME-TAX>                                0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   134,520 
<DISCONTINUED>                              0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0 
<CHANGES>                                   0 
<NET-INCOME>                          134,520 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.99 
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0 
                                
 

</TABLE>