alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT32**

 

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS**

 

Each of the undersigned herebycertifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thefiscal period ended September 30, 2008 of Lincoln Benefit Life Companyfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of Lincoln Benefit Life Company.

 

 
| November 11, 2008 |                      |
|------------------------|---------------------------|
|                   |                      |
|                   | /s/ James E. Hohmann      |
|                   | James E. Hohmann          |
|                   | Chairman of the Board and |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer   |
|                   |                      |
|                   |                      |
|                   | /s/ John C. Pintozzi      |
|                   | John C. Pintozzi          |
|                   | Senior Vice President and |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

E-4

----
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

 Eastern District of Texas

Headwater Research LLC

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al

2:23cv103-JRG-RSP

Headwater Research LLC

07/17/2024 /s/ Andrea L. Fair

Andrea L. Fair; Texas Bar No. 24078488

1507 Bill Owens Parkway

Longview, Texas 75604

andrea@wsfirm.com

(903) 757-6400

(903) 757-2323

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 07/17/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 4950
Muriel FIEDLER, petitioner, v. Mace BRINDLEY, et al.

No. 18-5382.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Samuel GICHARU, et al., petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General.

No. 18-242.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
John J. KORESKO, petitioner, v. R. Alexander ACOSTA, Secretary of Labor.

No. 18-6543.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO SEC RULE 13a-14(a)/15D-14(a) 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James R. Maronick, certify that:

1.          I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Solitario Resources Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2005;

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)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

|Date: May 3, 2006
/s/ James R. Maronick
James R. Maronick
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
      LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
----------------------------------
<S>                                            <C>
KAYNAR TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             United Kingdom

K.T.I. FEMIPARI KFT
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Hungary

KT INTERNATIONAL SALES CORP.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Barbados

RECOIL HOLDINGS, INC.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Delaware

RECOIL AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS, INC.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Delaware

RECOIL PTY
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Victoria, Australia

RECOIL (EUROPE) LTD.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             United Kingdom

RECOIL MARKETING BVBA
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Belgium

RECOIL PTE LTD.
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation:             Singapore
</TABLE>
Charles L. BURGETT, petitioner, v. Sheila PORTER, et al.

No. 17-9404.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,327,965
<SECURITIES>                                   107,667
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,310,057
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,866
<INVENTORY>                                  1,921,103
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,950,962
<PP&E>                                       1,764,706
<DEPRECIATION>                                (325,957)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,619,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,479,398
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,056
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,633,653
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,619,200
<SALES>                                      6,805,473
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,805,473
<CGS>                                        4,216,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,449,878
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                480,585
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (230,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            710,585
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   710,585
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        

</TABLE>
John T. HIGGINS, petitioner, v. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE.

No. 18-8780.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports datedFebruary 29, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements, and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of FARO Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2011. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of FARO Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-163950, effective January 10, 2010) and on Forms S-8 (FileNo. 333-160660, effective July, 17, 2009, File No. 333-125021, effective May, 18, 2005, File No. 333-41115, effective November 26, 1997, File No. 333-41125, effective November 26, 1997, File No. 333-41131,effective November 26, 1997 and File No. 333-41135, effective, November 26, 1997). 

/S/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Orlando, Florida 

February 28, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                               
<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>                             
</LEGEND>                            
<CIK>                                0000911147
<NAME>                               Century Casinos
<MULTIPLIER>                         1
<CURRENCY>                           U.S.DOLLARS
                                     
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                      1
<CASH>                               3,422,847
<SECURITIES>                         512,998
<RECEIVABLES>                        280,675
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                          63,150
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     4,526,179
<PP&E>                               22,358,143
<DEPRECIATION>                       4,049,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       35,440,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                4,020,884
<BONDS>                              11,899,730
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                             158,619
<OTHER-SE>                           19,361,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         35,440,920
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     14,552,636
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        6,061,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     6,438,942
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   745,844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      2,047,882
<INCOME-TAX>                         98,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  1,949,882
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                         1,949,882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.13
        


</TABLE>
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

3/27/23

Eastern District of Texas

GS HOLISTIC, LLC

 4:23-cv-00241

DENTON SMOKE SHOP LLC d/b/a DENTON

SMOKE STOP and SHAHZAD S ALI,

DENTON SMOKE SHOP LLC d/b/a DENTON SMOKE STOP

REGISTERED AGENT: SHAHZAD S ALI

324 E MCKINNEY ST SUITE 100

DENTON, TX 76201

Sanjay K. Minocha, Esquire

Minocha Law Firm

3300 Oak Lawn Avenue

Suite 700

Dallas, Texas 75219

Case 4:23-cv-00241-SDJ Document 4 Filed 03/27/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

 4:23-cv-00241

0.00

Case 4:23-cv-00241-SDJ Document 4 Filed 03/27/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 21
In Re Christopher D. SCHNEIDER, petitioner.

No. 18-5850.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

BRANDON IRVING NICHOLS,

Plaintiff,

v. 

WOOD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, 

WOOD COUNTY DETENTION 

CENTER,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00285-

JDK

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Brandon Nichols, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action on 

June 5, 2023. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love 

for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of 

the action. On August 28, 2023, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the 

case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Docket No. 9. 

Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the report and recommendation on September 1, 

2023. Docket No. 11. No objections to the Report were filed and the time period for 

filing objections has passed. Plaintiff has, however, filed a notice of additional 

evidence, two notices of writs, and a motion in limine. Docket Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14. 

Because objections to Judge Love’s Report have not been filed, Plaintiff is 

barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and 

Case 6:23-cv-00285-JDK-JDL Document 15 Filed 10/04/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 90
2

recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of 

the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and 

adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 

1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the 

Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of 

the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243 (1989) (holding that where no 

objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly 

erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). Moreover, Plaintiff’s additional 

filings are non-responsive to the Report and Recommendation and fail to give any 

factual basis for, or merit to, any § 1983 claims that he may be asserting. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

(Docket No. 9) is ADOPTED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The dismissal of this action under § 1915A(b)(1) counts 

as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 388. Plaintiff is 

warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed in 

forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or 

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury. See § 1915(g).

Signed this

Oct 4, 2023

Case 6:23-cv-00285-JDK-JDL Document 15 Filed 10/04/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 91
Budha Ismail JAM, et al., petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION.

No. 17-1011.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40073 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DOLORES PADILLA-PECINA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-411-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Dolores Padilla-Pecina (Padilla) appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being an alien found unlawfully in the United States after deportation and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. Padilla argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. Padilla’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Padilla contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectlyNo. 06-40073 -2- decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Padilla properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
---

---

Exhibit 15.1

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of DirectorsSilicom Ltd.:

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in registration statement no. 333-143565 on Form F-3 and registration statement
no. 333-149144 on Form S-8 of Silicom Ltd. of our report dated March 18, 2009, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Silicom Ltd. and its subsidiary as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period
ended December 31, 2008, which reports appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on
Form 20-F of Silicom Ltd.

Somekh ChaikinCertified Public Accountants (Israel)Member Firm of KPMG
International

Tel Aviv, IsraelMarch 22, 2009



---

---
1

United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

JOSEPH ANTHONY HANZICH IV §

§

V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-00087

§ JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, ET AL. §

HOTLINE ORDER

This case is assigned to the docket of United States District Judge Michael J. Truncale. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas, this matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge 

for determination of a discovery dispute via the “Discovery Hotline” maintained by the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 

On February 6, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants contacted this Court two 

separate times and obtained hotline hearings. During the deposition of Defendant Xander Haynes, 

Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to ask Mr. Haynes six questions, each of which Defendants’ counsel 

objected to as outside the scope of qualified immunity. See Cause No. 9:23-CV-00087-MJT, Dkt. 

No. 26 (limiting all discovery to the issue of qualified immunity). Understanding that counsel 

recorded the hotline hearing on their end (and thus has access to the specific language discussed 

in relation to each question), the undersigned generally ruled as follows: 

Question 1 – objection sustained 

Question 2 – objection overruled to the extent Plaintiff’s counsel rephrases the 

question in line with his representation during the first hotline hearing 

Question 3 – objection overruled 

Question 4 – objection sustained

Case 9:23-cv-00087-MJT Document 104 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 790
2

Question 5 – Plaintiff’s counsel will rephrase the question in line with the Court’s 

guidance during the first hotline hearing

Question 6 – Plaintiff’s counsel will rephrase the question in line with the Court’s 

guidance during the second hotline hearing

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

____________________________________

J. Boone Baxter

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

SIGNED this the 7th day of February, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00087-MJT Document 104 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 791
**EXHIBIT
      32-B**




**FARO
      Technologies, Inc.**


**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





Solely
      for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned President,
      Co-Chief Executive Officer and Director of FARO Technologies, Inc., (the
      Company) hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form
      10-K, for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with
      the
      requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/
                S
                / Jay W. FreelandJay
              W. FreelandJune
              29,
              2006