alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated
(the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

   (i)   the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



Dated: May 9, 2006               /s/ Raymond D. Zinn
                                     --------------------------
                                     Raymond D. Zinn
                                     Chief Executive Officer


                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
           Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Micrel, Incorporated
(the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

   (i)   the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



Dated: May 9, 2006                  /s/ Richard D. Crowley, Jr.
                                     --------------------------
                                     Richard D. Crowley
                                     Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1522
HERBERT HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEMMA POWER SYSTEM, LLC; EDDIE HACELTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-312-5-F) Submitted: September 8, 2003 Decided: October 22, 2003 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herbert Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Allen Holt Gwyn, Jr., CONNER, GWYN & SCHENCK, P.L.L.C., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Herbert Hayes appeals the district court’s orders granting Respondents’ motion for summary judgment in his employment discrimination action and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hayes v. Gemma Power Sys., L.L.C. , No. CA-01-312-5-F (E.D.N.C. Feb. 19, 2003 & Apr. 11, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
M Zacoate Lopey, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 18, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 8, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable R. Knox McMahon be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge McMahon shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge McMahon shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
Johnnie WILKES, Employee v. CITY OF GREENVILLE, Employer, Self-Insured.

(PMA Management Group, Third-Party Administrator).

No. 368PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 13, 2016.

Anita B. Hunt, Durham, for Wilkes, Johnnie.

Matthew P. Blake, Cary, for City of Greenville, et al.

J. William Crone, IV, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

J. Timothy Wilson, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Bruce A. Hamilton, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Tracey L. Jones, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Allison B. Schafer, Legal Counsel/Director of Policy, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Christine Teresa Scheef, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, for N.C. Association of Self-Insurers, et al.

M. Duane Jones, Charlotte, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys, et al.

Angela Farag Craddock, Raleigh, for N.C. Association of Defense Attorneys, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 10th of November 2015 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of November 2015 by Defendant 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:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of April 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00339-CV

Roxanna RAMIREZ and Armando M. Gonzalez,

Appellants

v.

PAUL YOUNG AUTO GROUP III, LLC d/b/a Paul Young Co.,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CVQ-001723-D1

Honorable Jose A. López, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 3, 2008

DISMISSED

Before the court is appellants’ motion for voluntary dismissal. Appellants’ motion to dismiss

is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of appeal are taxed

against the appellants. See id. at (d). 

PER CURIAM
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3982

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Angel M. Koski, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 19, 2010

 Filed: February 8, 2011

___________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MELLOY and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Angel M. Koski pleaded guilty to one

count of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1) and 846. The district court1

 sentenced her at the bottom of the

applicable Guidelines range to seventy-seven months' imprisonment followed by five

years' supervised release. Koski now appeals her sentence, arguing her sentence was

unreasonable, she should have received further reduction for mitigating circumstances,

and she should have been eligible for "safety valve" relief. We affirm.
-2-

The plea agreement contains an appeal waiver, according to which Koski

waived any and all rights to appeal her conviction and sentence except the right to

seek post-conviction relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, the right to

appeal the district court's decision that she does not meet the requirements of United

States Sentencing Guidelines § 5C1.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)–(5), and the right

to appeal her conviction and sentence if the statute under which she was convicted

were later found invalid. We will enforce the appeal waiver because the appeal falls

within the scope of the waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and

voluntariness, and enforcing the waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. See

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889–92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court should

enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both

plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no

miscarriage of justice would result).

Koski's only argument not barred by the appeal waiver is her claim that the

district court erred in finding that she is not eligible for the "safety valve" provision

set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The safety valve provision mandates that the court

sentence a defendant in accordance with the Guidelines without regard to any

statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds the defendant meets five statutory

requirements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The first of the five requirements is "the

defendant does not have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the

sentencing guidelines." § 3553(f)(1). The presentence report assigned Koski sixteen

criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, resulting in a criminal history

category of VI. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding Koski ineligible for

safety valve relief.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; Clinical Trials Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         February 28-March 2, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Sheraton Inner Harbor Hotel, 300 South Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21201.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Patricia A Haggerty, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Review Branch, Division of Extramural Affairs, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7194, MSC 7924, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435-0288,                         *haggerp_nhlbi.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 25, 2005.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-1830  Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2009006EN.01002202.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/22

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Lego Juris v OHIM — Mega Brands (Red Lego brick)

(Case T-270/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Red Lego brick - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Offers of evidence)

(2009/C 6/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and T. Dolde, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Mega Brands, Inc. (Montreal, Canada) (represented by: P. Cappuyns and C. De Meyer, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2006 (Case R 856/2004-G) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mega Brands, Inc. and Lego Juris A/S.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lego Juris A/S to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lego Juris A/S to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,587
<SECURITIES>                                     2,157
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,809
<ALLOWANCES>                                       503
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,892
<PP&E>                                          11,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,694
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,683
<SALES>                                         30,703
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,651
<CGS>                                            1,986
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,792
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,793
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6971

SAM FRANKLIN DAVIS, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROBERT ERWING, Attorney for

Plaintiff/Defendant; WEINMAN, Prosecutor; CANDI RENEE COOKER,

Victim,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Thomas David Schroeder,

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00177-TDS-PTS)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sam Franklin Davis, III, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sam Franklin Davis, III, appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). The district court referred this

case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

(2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Davis that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Davis

failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Davis forfeited appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We deny the motion to appoint counsel and 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.27

(QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL CORP. LOGO)

         Quintiles Transnational Corp.
         Post Office Box 13979
         Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3979
         918 998 2000 / Fax 919 998 9113
         http://www.quintiles.com



February 22, 2005

John Ratliff
4741 Sharpstone Lane
Raleigh, NC 27615

Re: Purchase of Pharma Shares

Dear John,

On February 4, 2005 you were offered the opportunity to purchase shares of
common stock of Pharma Services Holding, Inc. for $0.2438 per share. On
February 8, you accepted the offer, purchased the shares and filed an 83(b)
election. In connection with the potential tax liability to you resulting from
your election, Quintiles will pay to you the amount of $118,758.35. You remain
responsible for any personal tax liability whether or not this additional
payment to you fully addresses your tax liability.

We recommend that you seek advice from your personal tax advisor regarding the
payment.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 919-998-2018.

Sincerely,

/s/Nicky Rousseau

Nicky Rousseau
V.P., Global Compensation and Benefits
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2009 – Lee/DE v OHIM – Cooperativa italiana di ristorazione
(PIAZZA del SOLE)**

**(Case T-265/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark PIAZZA del SOLE – Earlier national and international word marks PIAZZA and PIAZZA D’ORO – Relative ground for refusal – Lack of likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Lack of similarity of the signs

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34, 56)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 July 2006 (Case R 235/2005‐2) concerning opposition proceedings between Sara Lee/DE NV and Cooperativa italiana di ristorazione Soc. Coop. rl. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Cooperativa italiana di ristorazione Soc. coop. rl |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark PIAZZA del SOLE for goods and services in Classes 16, 21, 25, 29, 30, 35, 36 and 42 – Application No 1518901 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Sara Lee/DE NV |
| Marks or signs cited in opposition: | National and international word mark PIAZZA and PIAZZA D’ORO for goods in Classes 21, 29, 30 and 42 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Sara Lee/DE NV to pay the costs. |