alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Specimen certificate for shares of common stock



 Exhibit 4.1 

 
 



 
 COMMON STOCK COMMON STOCK sessRii^ Ujp°9©£y : ‘ilfAPOG enterprises,
inc. : 1 SEE REVERSE SIDE : ;I FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS I:. ;B i INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA I 1CUSIP037598109 i. ] ![ THIS CERTIFIES THAT”. PEC1EN v>J% if-; X (/ 3 <8’”if.-* t ; is the owner of : FULLY
PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE COMMON SHARES, $0.33^ PER SHARE PAR VALUE, OF f o | : : APOGEE ENTERPRISES transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this VJ -K» :
s’i certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and Registrar: WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. SECRSTARY
TtaSsS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER m sh ;AiJ£KTOAN F^NANCJAt FK?X1^NG !NCOEri>BATKi; - .YHTVNSAKJUS 







 



 
 THE BOARD OF THIS CORPORATION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE AND DETERMINE THE RELATIVE
RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF CLASSES OR SERIES OF SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK OTHER THAN COMMON STOCK. THIS CORPORATION WILL FURNISH TO ANY SHAREHOLDER UPON WRITTEN REQUEST SENT TO ITS PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICES, AND WITHOUT CHARGE, A FULL STATEMENT OF
THE BOARD’S AUTHORITY TO CREATE AND DETERMINE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND PREFERENCES OF CLASSES OR SERIES OF SHARES OF CAPITAL STOCK AS WELL AS THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES, LIMITATIONS AND RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE SHARES OF EACH CLASS OR SERIES
THEN OUTSTANDING OR AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED. The following abbreviations, whan used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, sha:l be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM -
as tenants in common UTMA ’odian (Cust) (Minor) TEN ENT - as tenants by entireties under Uniform Transfers to Minors JTTEN - as joint tenants with right of survivorship Act and not as tenants in common (State) Additional abbreviations may also
be used though not in ‘above list. &&/’ oa/tte /’cccioed Ae/ie6y-sell, a&u^n-’, andfrwut/e/1-un£o- PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE I 1 TYpEWR|TE NAME AND AODRESs
INCLUDINCTZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE) tj/m/w of fries ca/jf£al stocA- /ia&/te&es?.£ea- ou- me,< uM’mm,- (je.rt(/ica£e, and do-Ae/ie/sy> f/Teooca.6^ ca/i<?f.i£a£e< a/id/afifi-oin£^ ^/u.fo/we//
<,_y to- £ra/M/?ji fAe s.atdxfocA o/t< t/te boohs, of/Ae tvit/tin -na/f/ed (..y ^ c.y (JMfioratio/t tvt^^i^’jb&w&^(^&6il>$ti{;u£io-n ifi- /A&fi/iem(xex. 0ated XX_ _ NOTICE: WE SIGNATURE TO THfS ASSGNMUjr
MU«T COf^.eSPONO WITH THE KAME AS \W(TTCW Uf-OM THE FAC;e OFTHECERTffTCATC IN EVERY P/WlCUAfi WTFUOl/TftLTERATiON OR ENlARGeMEWOrt Af>;VCH^MG^ WMA7B/ER SIGNATURE GUARANTEED ALL CUARAMTEES MUST BE MADE BY A FINANCIAL INSTmjTiO(4 (SUCH AS A
BANK OR BROKER] WHICH iS A PARTICIPANT IN THE SEClJRiTlES TRANSFER AGENTS MEDALLION PROGRAM (‘STAMP’}. THE N£W YORK STOCK EXCf4ANG£. INC. MEDALLION SIGNATURE PROGRAM 1HMSP”). Oft THF STOCK FXCHANGKS MEDALLION PROGRAM
(“SEMP”) AND MUST NOT BE DATED. GUARANTEeS BY A (OTARY PUSUC ARE NOT ACCtPTABLE.
Stanley BREWER, Petitioner, v. William LEE, Superintendent, Eastern New York Correctional Facility.

No. 19-7185

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

DARLENE BALISTRERIAMRHEIN

v. 

CHIEF JUDGE BRENDA 

RHOADES, ET AL.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-861-SDJ-KPJ

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in 

this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On May 22, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered 

proposed findings of fact and a recommendation (the “Report”), (Dkt. #6), that 

Plaintiff Darlene Balistreri-Amrhein’s (“Plaintiff”) claims be dismissed without 

prejudice and any pending motion be denied as moot pursuant to Rule 41(b) because 

Plaintiff did not comply with the terms of a pre-filing injunction issued against her.

Having received the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no 

timely objections being filed,1 the Court is of the opinion that the findings and 

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

1 On May 22, 2024, the Clerk of Court mailed the Report, (Dkt. #6), to Plaintiff via certified mail return 

receipt requested. On July 1, 2024, that mail was returned as undeliverable. (See Dkt. #7). Plaintiff is 

responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of her physical address. Local Rule CV11(d).

Case 4:23-cv-00861-SDJ-KPJ Document 8 Filed 07/20/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1099
2

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

Case 4:23-cv-00861-SDJ-KPJ Document 8 Filed 07/20/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1100
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

ASUS TECHNOLOGY LICENSING INC. 

AND CELERITY IP, LLC, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

AT&T INC., AT&T CORP., AT&T MOBILITY 

LLC, AT&T MOBILITY II LLC, AND AT&T 

SERVICES, INC., 

 Defendants. 

 

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-486 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFFS' 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7.1, Plaintiffs Asus Technology Licensing 

Inc. ("ATL") and Celerity IP, LLC ("Celerity") hereby disclose that: 

ATL is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ASUSTeK Computer Inc. No other publicly held 

corporation owns 10% or more of ATL's stock. 

Celerity is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Centreville SPV, LLC, which is a wholly-owned 

subsidiary of funds managed by GLS Capital, LLC. No publicly held corporation owns 10% or 

more of Celerity's stock. 

DATED: October 19, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Robert Christopher Bunt 

Robert C. Bunt 

Texas State Bar No. 00787165 

rcbunt@pbatyler.com 

PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 418 

Case 2:23-cv-00486-JRG-RSP Document 3 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 56
2 

Tyler, Texas 75702 

Tel: (903) 531-3535 

Jason Sheasby 

California State Bar No. 205455 

(pro hac vice to be filed) 

jsheasby@irell.com 

Hong (Annita) Zhong, PhD 

California State Bar No. 266924 

(pro hac vice to be filed) 

hzhong@irell.com 

Christopher Abernethy 

California State Bar No. 275986 

(pro hac vice to be filed) 

cabernethy@irell.com 

Tony Rowles 

California State Bar No. 301209 

(pro hac vice to be filed) 

trowles@irell.com 

Stephen Payne 

California State Bar No. 310567 

(pro hac vice to be filed) 

spayne@irell.com 

IRELL & MANELLA LLP 

1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 

Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 

Tel: (310) 277-1010 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

ASUS TECHNOLOGY LICENSING INC. 

AND CELERITY IP, LLC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that, on October 19, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

served to all counsel of record via CM/ECF. 

/s/ Robert Christopher Bunt 

Robert Christopher Bunt 

Case 2:23-cv-00486-JRG-RSP Document 3 Filed 10/19/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 57
Raul MEJIA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7477

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

JACK-WILSON: BUTLER,

Plaintiff,

v. 

LANA ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-01070-

SDJ-AGD

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), this Motion having been referred to the 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 9, 2024, the Report of 

the Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #51), was entered containing proposed findings of fact 

and recommendation that Defendant Landrum’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #20) be 

granted; Defendant State Bar’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #21) be granted; the 

Municipal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #22) be granted; Plaintiff’s Motions 

to Strike (Dkt. #24; Dkt. #25) be denied; and Plaintiff’s case be dismissed with 

prejudice.

On September 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report (Dkt. 

#55). The Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s objections and the 

portions of the Report to which Plaintiff specifically objects. Having done so, the Court 

is of the opinion that the findings of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report as the findings of the Court.

Case 4:23-cv-01070-SDJ-AGD Document 61 Filed 09/24/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 465
2

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Landrum’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 

#20) is GRANTED; Defendant State Bar’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #21) is 

GRANTED; the Municipal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #22) is GRANTED; 

Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike (Dkt. #24; Dkt. #25) are DENIED; and Plaintiff’s case is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

It is further ORDERED that any request for relief not addressed by the Report 

(Dkt. #51) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Case 4:23-cv-01070-SDJ-AGD Document 61 Filed 09/24/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 466
Robert W. WAZNEY, Petitioner v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

No. 19-6400

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

The petition for rehearing is denied.
Exhibit 10(a)



 EXHIBIT (10)(a) 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Statement
of Additional Information and to the use of our reports: (1) dated April 13, 2012, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Transamerica Life Insurance Company, and (2) dated April 23, 2012, with respect to the
financial statements of the subaccounts of Separate Account VA EE, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 15 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-149336) under the Securities Act of 1933 and related Prospectus of Transamerica
PrincipiumSM II Variable Annuity. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 
 Des
Moines, Iowa 
 April 27, 2012
No. 6:23-cv-00430

James Anthony Hunter,

Plaintiff,

v.

Larry Smith et al.

Defendants.

ORD ER

Plaintiff James Anthony Hunter, an inmate confined within 

the Smith County Jail proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil-rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The 

case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love. 

After a Spears hearing, the magistrate judge issued a report 

(Doc. 32) recommending that plaintiff’s claims against 

defendants Smith, Pinkerton, Rhode, Saxon, Smith County, and 

Boller be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. The magistrate judge recommended 

that plaintiff’s claims against the remaining defendants proceed.

A copy of this report was sent to plaintiff at his last-known 

address. The docket reflects that plaintiff received a copy of the 

report on April 19, 2024. Doc. 40. Plaintiff has not filed 

objections.

When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for 

clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 

1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s 

report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court 

accepts its findings and recommendation. 

Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Smith, Pinkerton, 

Rhode, Saxon, Smith County, and Boller are therefore dismissed 

Case 6:23-cv-00430-JCB-JDL Document 43 Filed 07/19/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 211
- 2 -

with prejudice for the failure to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted. 

So ordered by the court on July 19, 2024.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00430-JCB-JDL Document 43 Filed 07/19/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 212
- 1 - 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC § 

 § 

v. § CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00397-JRG-RSP 

 § (Lead Case) 

AT&T INC., et al § 

 

HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC § 

 § 

v. § CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP 

 § (Member Case) 

AT&T INC., et al § 

ORDER 

The above-captioned cases are hereby ORDERED to be CONSOLIDATED for all 

pretrial issues with the LEAD CASE, Case No. 2:23-cv-00397. All parties are instructed to file 

any future filings in the LEAD CASE. Individual cases remain active for trial. 

The Clerk is instructed to add the consolidated Defendants into the Lead Case and their 

corresponding Lead and Local Counsel only. Additional counsel may file a Notice of Appearance 

in the Lead Case if they wish to continue as counsel of record in the lead consolidated action. 

Counsel who has appeared pro hac vice in any member case may file a Notice of Appearance in 

the Lead Case without filing an additional application to appear pro hac vice in the Lead Case. 

Counsel who have not appeared in a member case at the point when it is consolidated into the Lead 

Case should file a Notice of Appearance only in the Lead Case, and such Notice should state the 

relevant member case. 

Case 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP Document 25 Filed 11/02/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 216
- 2 - So Ordered this

Nov 2, 2023

Case 2:23-cv-00398-JRG-RSP Document 25 Filed 11/02/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 217
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SHERMAN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 

ALEJANDRO ROMAN-TORRES,

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NUMBER 4:23-CR-00087-SDJ

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S FINDINGS

OF FACT AND RECOMMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

The Court referred this matter to the United States Magistrate Judge for administration of 

a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge conducted a 

hearing in the form and manner prescribed by Rule 11 and issued Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court accept

Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment. 

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation, the Court hereby 

ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States 

Magistrate Judge and accepts Defendant’s guilty plea. It is further ORDERED that, in accordance 

with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the Magistrate Judge’s findings, Defendant Alejandro 

Roman-Torres is adjudged guilty as to Count One of the Indictment, charging a violation of 

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) - Reentry of Deported Alien. 

Case 4:23-cr-00087-SDJ-KPJ Document 23 Filed 10/09/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 42
<PAGE>   1





                                                                      Exhibit 16

                   Letter on Change of Certifying Accountant



March 25, 1998

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549

Gentlemen:

We have read the statements made by Super Vision International, Inc. (the
"Registrant") in response to Item 304(a), as part of the Company's 1997 annual
report on Form 10-K.  We have been asked to respond to statements made by the
Registrant in their 1997 annual report on Form 10-K regarding changes in
Registrant's certifying accountant.

We agree with the statements made by the Registrant in paragraphs one, two,
four and five under Item 8 of the 1997 annual report on Form 10-K.  We agree
with the statements made by the Registrant in the first six sentences of the
fourth paragraph under Item 8 of the 1997 annual report on Form 10-K as to the
fact pattern regarding consultations on the accounting for the lease.
Throughout the process of these discussions on the appropriate accounting for
the lease, we were informed of management's disagreement with our
interpretation of the "fair market value" and were advised on June 2, 1997 of
management's intention to review the lease issue with other accountants to
compare their interpretation of "fair market value".  It was at this time when
we concluded that this was likely a matter that would qualify for reporting as
accounting disagreement.  On June 4, 1997, we provided information to the
Registrant's Chief Financial Officer on consultations with other accountants as
well as reporting accounting disagreements.  As recently as September 30, 1997,
the Registrant's Chief Financial Officer advised us that he would be asking the
Registrant's new independent accountants to review our conclusions on the
accounting for the lease for concurrence.

It is our understanding of the rules that even if the disagreement was resolved
to our satisfaction, the matter still must be reported as a disagreement.  When
advised of the Registrant's decision to terminate Coopers & Lybrand as the
independent accountants on September 30, 1997, we informed the Registrant's
Chief Financial Officer that we would be reviewing the rules for reporting of
accounting disagreements as it related to our response to be filed with Form
8-K.  We provided the Registrant our response letter as former auditors on
October 7, 1997 within 10 business days after receiving notice from the
Registrant as required by Item 304.

Sincerely,


Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Trent BROWN, Petitioner, v. Mark MCCULLICK, Warden, et al.

No. 19-6992

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Rafael AGOSTO, petitioner, v. Christopher MILLER, Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility.

No. 18-8483.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 5, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Opinion issued June 26, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00347-CV

———————————

OLIVER BYRON JACKSON AND RACHEL GILBEAUX JACKSON, 

Appellants

V.

BLACKHAWK (HOUSTON) HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2013-18792

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties have filed a “Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Vacate 

Judgment Below,” requesting that we dismiss the appeal and vacate the trial 

court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). No opinion has issued.
2

Accordingly, we grant the motion, vacate the trial court’s judgment, and 

dismiss the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), 43.2(e); Jester Venture, Ltd. v. 

Nash, No. 01-06-00512-CV, 2006 WL 2042358, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] July 17, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.); Griffin v. Cedarwood Apartments, No. 

01-98-01106-CV, 2000 WL 210417, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 

24, 2000, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We dismiss any 

other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 8, 2021

No. 04-21-00367-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., a child

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-PA-01403

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant Mom’s brief was due to be filed with this court on October 7, 2021. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.6(a). On the due date, Mom filed a motion for a twenty-one-day extension of time 

to file her brief.

Appellant Mom’s motion is GRANTED. Her brief is due on October 28, 2021. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

BARCO, INC. and BARCO NV, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

YEALINK (USA) NETWORK 

TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., and 

YEALINK NETWORK TECHNOLOGY 

CO., LTD., 

Defendants. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 2:23-CV-00521-JRG-RSP 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

DEFENDANTS YEALINK (USA) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., and 

YEALINK NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.’S 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ELIZABETH M. CHIAVIELLO 

Defendants Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network 

Technology Co., Ltd. file this notice of attorney appearance and hereby notify the Court and all 

parties of record that Elizabeth M. Chiaviello is appearing as counsel for Defendants Yealink 

(USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. in the abovereferenced matter. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 8 Filed 12/05/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 200
2 

Dated: December 5, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Elizabeth M. Chiaviello 

Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman 

Texas State Bar No. 24053269 

ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com 

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 

1400 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124 

T. (650) 843-4000 

F. (650) 843-4001 

Elizabeth M. Chiaviello 

Texas State Bar No. 24088913 

elizabeth.chiaviello@morganlewis.com 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 

1717 Main Street, Suite 3200 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

T. (214) 466-4000 

F. (214) 466-4001 

Attorneys for Defendants Yealink (USA) 

Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Yealink 

Network Technology Co., Ltd. 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 8 Filed 12/05/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 201
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was served via the Court’s ECF/CM e-filing system to all counsel of record who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic service on this 5th day of December 2023. 

/s/ Elizabeth M. Chiaviello

Elizabeth M. Chiaviello 

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 8 Filed 12/05/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 202
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

       I, David A. Grossman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Baltic International USA, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Baltic International USA, Inc.

Date: April 14, 2008

                              /s/ David A. Grossman
                              -------------------------------------------------
                              David A. Grossman
                              Chief Financial Officer