alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.6





CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 350)








I, Li Yu , certify that:


|   |                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Acacia Research Corporation; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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;







Dated:April 30, 2019/s/ Li YuLi YuCorporate Controller(Principal Financial Officer)
II-00368

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

George Yenoki <gymail 1-actions@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 10:43 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

George Yenoki

372 Monterey Rd

South Pasadena, CA 91030
|Exhibit 99.1
|------------

|**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER**
|------------------------------------------------------------------------

|**PURSUANT TO**
|---------------

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

|**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
|--------------------------

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

|
|

|I, L. Daniel Rawitch, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of FiNet.com,
Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of FiNet.com, Inc.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |                                         |                       
| | --------------------------------------- | ----------------------
| | By:                                     | /s/  L. Daniel Rawitch
| |                                        
| | L. Daniel Rawitch                      
| | *President and Chief Executive Officer*
| | August 14, 2002                        

|
|

|I, Eva Noack, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
FiNet.com, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of FiNet.com, Inc.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |                 |               
| | --------------- | --------------
| | By:             | /s/  Eva Noack
| |                
| | Eva Noack      
| | *Treasurer*    
| | August 14, 2002









|
|
Jeremy J. QUINN, Jr., petitioner, v. Jay FORSHEY, Warden.

No. 15-9531.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3696 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3696

To extend funding for section 510 of the Social Security Act (regarding 
                     a youth empowerment program).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2019

  Mr. Flores introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend funding for section 510 of the Social Security Act (regarding 
                     a youth empowerment program).

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Youth Empowerment Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. YOUTH EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM.

    Subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), (f)(1), and (f)(2) of section 510 of 
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 710) are amended by striking ``2018 
and 2019'' each place it appears and inserting ``2020 and 2021''.
                                 <all>
```
Javed ASLAM, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-478.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District denied.
Carl NELSON, II, petitioner, v. David BALLARD, Warden.

No. 16-6865.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2010063EN.01004406.xml

| 13.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/44

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2009 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-141/09) (1)

1

2010/C 63/76

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 205 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 205

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         March 5, 2009.
    Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1106) to 
prevent mortgage foreclosures and enhance mortgage credit availability, pursuant 
to House Resolution 190, amendment number 1 printed in House Report 111-21 shall 
be considered as perfected by the modification printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2011080EN.01000802.xml

| 12.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 80/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/8

---

Order of the Court of 4 October 2010 — Vladimir Ivanov v European Commission

(Case C-532/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Action for non-contractual liability - Loss of an opportunity for recruitment - Abuse of process - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

2011/C 80/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Vladimir Ivanov (represented by: F. Rollinger, avocat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2009 in Case T-166/08 Ivanov v Commission dismissing the action brought by the appellant in order to obtain compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered following a Commission decision refusing to recruit him as a local administrative and technical assistance employee at the Commission delegation in Sofia — Autonomous nature of the action for non-contractual liability as opposed to the action for annulment — Abuse of process — Possibility of the Court of First Instance raising that rule of its own motion

Ivanov

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ivanov to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ivanov to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 51, 27.02.2010.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7147

ELMORE MCLEMORE, a/k/a William Westbrooks,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

P. PITZER, BOP Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 98-7148

ELMORE MCLEMORE, a/k/a Verdel Jenkins,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

P. PITZER, BOP Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

Attorney General of the State of Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.
2

No. 98-7149

ELMORE MCLEMORE, a/k/a William Clemons,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

P. PITZER, BOP Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

Attorney General of the State of Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 98-7150

ELMORE MCLEMORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

P. PITZER, BOP Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA98-1951-S, CA-98-2055-S, CA-98-2073-S, CA-98-2082-S)
3

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 9, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elmore McLemore, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s judgments in 98-7147 and 98-

7148 are marked as “filed” on June 30, 1998, the district court’s

records show that they were entered on the docket sheets on July 1,

1998. Similarly, the district court’s judgments in 98-7149 and 98-

7150 are marked as “filed” on July 2, 1998, but the district

court’s records show that they were entered on the docket sheets on

July 7, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, we take the date that the judgment was entered

on the docket sheet as the effective date of the district court’s

decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.

1986).

4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Elmore McLemore seeks to appeal

the district court’s orders denying relief on his petitions filed

under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court.

See McLemore v. Pitzer, Nos. CA-98-1951-S, CA-98-2055-S (D. Md.

July 1, 1998); CA-98-2073-S, CA-98-2082-S (D. Md. July 7, 1998).*

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.

DISMISSED
Tracey RHODES, petitioner, v. Greg ZOELLER, Attorney General of Indiana.

No. 15-1414.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
December 31, 1996 (audited) financial statements of Medjet Inc. and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,241,985
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,083
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,290,660
<PP&E>                                         274,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,440
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,540,259
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          349,839
<BONDS>                                        165,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,682
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,186,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,540,259
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,328,211
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,068
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,273,577)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,273,977)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,273,977)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.43)


</TABLE>
Michael Allyn KENNEDY, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 15-9355.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
# C_2010288EN.01006902.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/69

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — Doyle v European Police Office (Europol)

(Case F-37/09) (1)

(Staff case - Europol employees - Non-renewal of a contract - Contract of indefinite duration - Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

(2010/C 288/129)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Margaret Doyle (Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands) (represented initially by P. de Casparis, lawyer, then by W. J. Dammingh and N. D. Dane, lawyers)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of 12 June 2008 informing the applicant that it was impossible to offer her a permanent post, and the decision of 7 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Doyle a contract of indefinite duration; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of 12 June 2008 by which the European Police Office (Europol) refused to offer to Ms Doyle a contract of indefinite duration;

| 2. | orders Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Europol to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 167, of 18.07.09., p 26

---
Juan TURNER, petitioner, v. Christopher PORRINO, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al.

No. 16-6121.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00433-CR

Daniel Ledesma

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1273111D)

July 3, 2014

Per Curiam

(nfp)

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 

PER CURIAM
Oddis Kent GWINN, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 16-675.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied.
MCNB BANK AND TRUST CO., petitioner, v. WEST VIRGINIA ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS.

No. 16-331.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         216,208
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  302,982
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,495
<PP&E>                                         426,456
<DEPRECIATION>                                 375,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 639,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          513,752
<BONDS>                                        228,061
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           761
<OTHER-SE>                                    (103,532)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   639,042
<SALES>                                        274,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               684,375
<CGS>                                          114,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  408,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,147
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (134,345)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (134,345)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                408,255
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   273,910
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
Larry Lavonne BERRY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7272.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
John NAPOLI, aka Junior, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6945.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Mary HERNANDEZ, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph Hernandez, Deceased, et al., petitioners, v. KROGER TEXAS, L.P.

No. 17-888.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District denied.
In re Donald BENNETT, petitioner.

No. 16-6868.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.