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

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Chilco River Holdings Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Winston Yen, Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer 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) or 15(d) of the
                    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) |  | The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date:  May 15, 2006 | By:   /s/ Winston Yen
       __________________________________________
           Winston Yen
           Chief Financial Officer       
           (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
- Home
- Facts
- What is the cryosphere?

# **What is the cryosphere?**

## The cryosphere is **the frozen water part of the Earth system**.

*Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska. One part of the cryosphere is ice that is found in water. This includes frozen parts of the ocean, such as waters surrounding Antarctica and the Arctic.*

There are  places on Earth that are so cold that water is frozen solid. These areas of  snow or ice, which are subject to temperatures below **0°C** for at least part of the year,  compose the cryosphere. The term “cryosphere” comes from the Greek word, “krios,”  which means cold.

Ice and snow  on land are one part of the cryosphere. This includes the largest parts of the  cryosphere, the continental ice sheets found in Greenland and Antarctica, as  well as ice caps, glaciers, and areas of snow and permafrost. When continental  ice flows out from land and to the sea surface, we get shelf ice.

The other  part of the cryosphere is ice that is found in water. This includes frozen  parts of the ocean, such as waters surrounding Antarctica and the Arctic. It  also includes frozen rivers and lakes, which mainly occur in polar areas.

The components of the  cryosphere play an important role in the Earth’s climate. Snow and ice reflect  heat from the sun, helping to regulate our planet’s temperature. Because polar  regions are some of the most sensitive to climate shifts, the cryosphere may be  one of the first places where scientists are able to identify global changes in  climate.      

##### More **Information**

 U.S. National Ice Center 

 What is an iceberg? 

 NASA: Cyrospheric Sciences Program 

 NOAA: Arctic Theme Page 

##### **Last updated:**

###### 						 10/04/23					

**Author:** NOAA

How to cite this article

Contact Us

##### 					Feedback

                  -  Provide Feedback 
                  -  Contact Us
                  -  Report an error

##### 					Social

                  - 
                  - 
                  - 
*Science. Service.Stewardship.*
							About NOS						- About Us
- NOS Program Offices
- Media Inquiries
- Website Acknowledgements
- Site Index
- Disclaimer
							More Resources						- Freedom of Information Act
- Accessibility
- Information Quality
- Privacy Policy
- NOS For Employees
- USA.gov
-  Department of Commerce
-  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
-  National Ocean Service
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 21, 2016

No. 04-16-00501-CV

BORAIN CAPITAL, LLC,

Appellant

v.

Syed HASHMI,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-11798

The Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On September 13, 2016, the court reporter responsible for filing the reporter’s record in 

this appeal filed a notification of late record stating the reporter’s record had not been filed 

because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing 

the record and appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. On September 15, 2016, 

we ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court that either (1) the reporter’s fee had

been paid or arrangements had been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to 

appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. On September 19, 2019, appellant filed written proof in 

this court that the reporter’s fee had been paid. It is therefore ORDERED that the reporter’s 

record be filed in this court no later than thirty days from the date of this order.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 21st day of September, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
116 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

WISCONSIN 

#29

$5.1 B SPENT IN 

STATE 

#35

1.3% OF STATE GDP

0.9%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING 

$857

PER RESIDENT 

#23

$4.5 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING 

#36

17,384 NUMBER OF 

PERSONNEL 

#41

$0.6 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Research and

Construction: 2% Development: 1%

Service: 10%

Supplies and Equipment: 88%

By Service 

Army

31%

Navy/Marines

29%

Air Force

26%

Other Defense

14%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Active Duty: 4%

Reserve: 26% Civilian: 16%

National Guard: 54%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

77%

Navy/Marines

6%

Air Force

16%

Other Defense

1%

Top Defense Contractors 

Oshkosh Corp.

Fincantieri Group

National Presto Industries

Enpro Industries, Inc.

Logistics Health, Inc.

Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance

UnitedHealth Group

Advantage Federal Resourcing, Inc.

Leonardo SpA

General Electric

(M = millions, B = billions)

$2.1 B

$562.4 M

$251.1 M

$99.5 M

$90.5 M

$79.4 M

$62.6 M

$58.3 M

$55.8 M

$54.0 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$4.9

FY20

$4.3 $4.5

$3.0 $3.0

FY16

$2.6 $2.1

$1.3

FY14 FY15 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY21

$593.9 MILLION 17,384

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Dane 139 645 2,424

Milwaukee 233 389 1,257

Monroe 278 1,142 227 

Juneau 0 165 726

Brown 19 28 132 

Waukesha ND 0 324 

Winnebago 34 0 170 

Fond du Lac ND 0 325 

Marathon ND 23 163

La Crosse ND ND 145 

Reserve

755 

1,046

701 

0 

573 

155 

228 

87 

184 

157 

Total

3,963

2,925

2,348

891 

752 

ND 

432 

ND 

ND 

ND 
(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

WISCONSIN FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

Juneau

Marathon

Brown

Dane

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

Monroe

La Crosse

Marinette

Outagamie

Winnebago

Dane

Rock

Kenosha

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

Winnebago

Marinette

Rock

Waukesha

Dane

Milwaukee

La Crosse

Monroe

Outagamie

Kenosha

(M = millions)

$2.1 B

$565.3 M

$350.6 M

$339.7 M 

$205.6 M

$170.3 M

$162.3 M

$97.3 M 

$58.0 M

$49.7 M

Dane

Monroe

Milwaukee

Juneau

Brown

Waukesha

Winnebago

Buffalo

La Crosse

Marathon

$159.9 M

$134.9 M

$103.5 M

$31.6 M

$15.7 M

$10.9 M

$10.7 M

$8.9 M 

$8.1 M

$7.7 M 

La Crosse

Monroe

Buffalo

Winnebago

Waukesha

Milwaukee

Waukesha

Milwaukee

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 11

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

7
<PAGE>



Exhibit 10.11

                               FOURTH AMENDMENT TO
                       CONVERTIBLE SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

      THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO CONVERTIBLE SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE (the "FOURTH
AMENDMENT") is made and entered into as of July 26, 2005, by and among NORTHWEST
BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "MAKER") and ______________
(the "HOLDER"). This Amendment amends the Note (as defined below).

                                    RECITALS

A. SECTION 10 of that certain Convertible Secured Promissory Note, dated as of
November 12, 2003 and amended on April 26, 2004, April 12, 2005 and June 16,
2005, by and between the Maker and the Holder (as so amended the "NOTE"), states
that any provision of such note may be amended or waived in writing by the
Holder and the Maker; and

B. The Maker and the Holder wish to amend the Note as provided below.

                                    AGREEMENT

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1.    SECTION 1 of the Note is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as
      follows:

            "1. Maturity Date. The aggregate principal amount of this Note and
      accrued interest thereon shall be due and payable on November 15, 2005
      (such date, the "MATURITY DATE")."

                                        1

<PAGE>


2.    All other terms and conditions of the Note shall be unaffected hereby and
      remain in full force and effect

3.    This Fourth Amendment shall be shall be governed by and construed under
      the laws of the State of Washington as applied to agreements among
      Washington residents entered into and to be performed entirely within the
      State of Washington.

4.    This Fourth Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of
      which will be deemed an original but all of which together shall
      constitute one and the same agreement.

                            [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

                                        2

<PAGE>



      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this FOURTH AMENDMENT
TO CONVERTIBLE SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE as of the date first above written.

MAKER:

NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation

By:________________________
Name:______________________
Title:_____________________

HOLDER:

___________________________
Name:

                                        3
STATE v. Lee Junior BLOUNT.

No. 692P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

William Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Michael Parker, District Attorney, for State.

*385The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th day of December 2005 by Defendant for Appropriate Relief Under Blakely v Washington:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of January 2006."
Exhibit 99.1**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM ON SCHEDULE**To the Stockholders of INX Inc.Inconnection with our audits of the consolidated financial statementsof INX Inc. (formerly I-Sector Corporation) and subsidiariesreferred to in our report dated March 13, 2006, except for the restatement discussed in Note 16 to theconsolidated financial statements as to which the date is August 14, 2006, which is included in theCompany’s 2005 Form 10-K/A,we have also audited Schedule II for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2004 and 2005. In ouropinion, this schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as awhole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein./s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
Daniel ZBYTNIUK, Employee-Plaintiff v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. (f/k/a Cardinal Freight Carriers), Self-Insured, Employer-Defendant.

No. 162P05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Neil P. Andrews, Charlotte, for ABF Freight Systems, Inc.

Phillip J. Anthony, Kathrine E. Downing, Raleigh, for Daniel Zbytniuk.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of October 2005 by Defendant in *638this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of November 2005."
POWERS V.POWERS.

No. COA04-987.

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed August 2, 2005.

Certification Date August 22, 2005.

Appeal from the Iredell (01CVD2720)

Case reported without published opinion Reversed and remanded.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 FEBRUARY 8, 2010

JOHN LEY

ACTING CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-12895

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-20767-CR-UU

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SILVIA MARIA ZAYAS,

a.k.a. China,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(February 8, 2010)

Before BLACK, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Neal Gary Rosenweig, appointed counsel for Sylvia Maria Zayas, has filed a
motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the record reveals no

arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Zayas’s

conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

2
STATE v. Robert C. LONG.

No. 610P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 2, 2005.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Robert Christopher Long.

Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of November 2005 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of November 2005."
STATE v. BOSTICK.

No. COA04-1619.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 3, 2006.

Certification Date January 23, 2006.

Appeal from Richmond (02CRS50461, 02CRS2675).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, David R. Helwig,certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InfraSource Services, Inc.;

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

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)    Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

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

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirector (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

(a)    Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

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

Date: November 15,2004
| /s/ DAVID  R. HELWIG                    |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| David R. Helwig                         |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer and President* |   |

 

----
118 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

Service: 63%

Researc

Develop

h a

me

t: 18% 

WYOMING 

#51 #42 0.1% $784 #51 #49 #49

$0.5 B SPENT IN 1.2% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $0.1 B CONTRACT 7,477 NUMBER OF $0.4 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Supplies and

Equipmen Construction: 14%

By Service 

Army

Navy/Marines

2%

Air Force

Other Defense

5%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 3%

National 

Guard: 38%

Civilian: 16%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

27%

Navy/Marines

1%

Air Force

Other Defense

1%

72%

nd

nt: 5%

41%

51%

Active Duty: 43%

Top Defense Contractors 

M1 Support Services

American Contracting

Hi-Tech Bed Systems Corp.

Atlantic Tactical Inc.

Umyuaq Construction 

Veterans Holding Group

Colas Inc.

Faith Enterprises

A-Vet/MGC

Kennon Products

(M = millions)

$10.8 M

$4.7 M

$4.5 M

$3.8 M

$3.6 M

$3.6 M

$3.5 M

$3.4 M

$3.4 M

$3.2 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$0.2 $0.2

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19

$0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1

FY20

$357.1 MILLION 7,477

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active

Duty

Civilian National

Guard

Laramie 3,229 1,063 1,792

Platte ND 76 189

Natrona ND 13 90

Albany ND ND 111 

Uinta 0 ND 98

Sheridan 0 ND 63

Campbell 0 0 79

Goshen 0 0 79

Sweetwater 0 0 71

Fremont 0 ND 69

Reserve

126

0

56

0

0

23

0

0

0

0

Total

6,210

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

79

79

71

ND 
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 119

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

 =

WYOMING 

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (K = thousands, M = millions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

Laramie

Sheridan

Platte

Natrona

Teton

Albany

Park

Sublette

Big Horn

Fremont

$73.6 M

$7.0 M

$5.2 M

$4.0 M

$3.7 M

$1.2 M

$1.1 M

$1.1 M

$636.6 K 

$417.9 K

Laramie

Platte

Natrona

Albany

Sheridan

Uinta

Campbell

Fremont

Lincoln

Goshen

$320.8 M

$9.0 M

$4.9 M

$4.3 M 

$3.4 M 

$2.5 M

$2.5 M

$2.1 M

$1.7 M

$1.6 M

Park Big Horn

Sheridan

Teton

Fremont Natrona

Laramie

Sublette

Sheridan

Fremont Natrona

Laramie

Lincoln

Uinta

Campbell

Goshen

Albany Platte

Albany Platte

(M millions)
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed October 24, 2013.

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 01265

- CR

ADRIAN DESH ARN OVEAL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13

- 70144

- Q



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Ju stices O’Neill, Lang

- Miers, and Evans

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s counsel has approved the

motion. Th e Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS th at th e appeal be DISMISSED and

this decision be certified below for observanc e. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47

131265F.U05
RSN PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff v. N. Earl JONES, Jr., Specialty Contract Services, LLC and River Run Investments, LLC, Defendants. N. Earl Jones, Jr., Third-Party Plaintiff v. Rickie Day, Individually, Rickie Day, T/A Southeast Investments, Beverly Gurkin, Ann Gurkin Realty Inc. and Charlotte Day, Third-Party Defendants. and Specialty Contract Services, LLC, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff v. Rickie Day and wife, Judy Day, Third-Party Defendants.

No. 186P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

James M. Johnson, Dunn, for N. Earl Jones, Jr., et al.

Douglas E. Turner, Jr., Dunn, for RSN Properties, et al.

O. Henry Willis, Dunn, for Rickie Day, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th day of April 2005 by Defendants (N. Earl Jones, Jr. Specialty Contract Services, LLC, and River Run Investments and Third-Party Plaintiffs N. Earl Jones, Jr. and Specialty Contract Services) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mtniteb**~tate~** 

# <!Courtof**~peaI~** 

# fortbejf 

# eberaI QCircuit

IN RE ERIC JASINSKI, MICHAEL RICHARD OUELLETTE, AND 

### JEREMY PAUL ROWLAND 2012-1482 (Serial No. 10/906,508) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board ofPatent Appeals and Interferences. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER The appellants move without opposition for an extension oftime to file the reply brief. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: Case: 12-1482 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 11/29/2012IN RE ERIC JASINSKI 2 

### The motion is granted to the extent that the reply briefis due on or before November 8, 2012. FOR THE COURT 

### /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk s27 Case: 12-1482 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 11/29/2012
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

AMATECH GROUP LTD., Appellant

v.

INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, Appellee

______________________

2023

- 2300, 2023

- 2381, 2023

- 2430

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2022

- 00235, IPR2022

- 00417 and IPR2022

- 00650.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of AmaTech Group Ltd.’s motion to voluntarily dismiss these appeals pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) , and the parties’ response as to the allocation of costs,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) These appeals are dismissed. Case: 23-2300 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 02/06/2024AMATECH GROUP LTD

. v. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG 2

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

Febr uary 6 , 2024

Date F OR THE C OURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 6, 2024 Case: 23-2300 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 02/06/2024