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

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Netlist, Inc., a Delawarecorporation (“Netlist”) for the quarter ended September 29, 2007 (the “Report”),Chun K. Hong, president, chief executive officer and chairman of the board ofNetlist, and Nita J. Moritz, vice president and chief financial officer ofNetlist, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or herknowledge:

 

(1)                                  the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Netlist, Inc.

 
|   | November 6,  2007 |                                                          |                | /s/ Chun K.  Hong |
|--------|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|-------------------|
|   |              | Chun K. Hong                                                  |
|   |              | President,  Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board |
|   |              | (Principal  Executive Officer)                                |
|   |              |                                                          |
|   |              |                                                          |
|   | November 6,  2007 |                                                          | /s/ Nita J.  Moritz |
|   |              | Nita J.  Moritz                                               |
|   |              | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer                   |
|   |              | (Principal  Financial Officer)                                |
|        |                   |                                                               |                     |                   |  |

 

----
#### M.H., Appellant, v. STATE of FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D02-3462.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 28, 2003.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 22, 2003.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gregory Morse, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

KLEIN, J.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made to a school official in the presence of a law enforcement officer employed as a school resource officer. We affirm.

The charges involved an altercation with another student at a middle school. Appellant, who was in the seventh grade, was taken by the resource officer to the office of a school official who questioned appellant in the presence of the resource officer. All questioning was done by the school official except that the resource officer asked one question at the end.

The trial court suppressed the answer appellant gave to the one question asked by the resource officer because appellant had not been given warnings required by *Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Appellant argues that all of his statements should be suppressed, not simply the one elicited by the resource officer. We disagree. The mere presence of a law en*234forcement officer, when a student is being questioned by a school official, does not amount to a custodial interrogation requiring *Miranda*warnings. *In Interest of J.C.,*591 So.2d 315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The trial court was accordingly correct in suppressing only appellant’s statements made in response to the question asked by the police officer.

We have considered the other issues raised by appellant and find them to be without merit.

GUNTHER and TAYLOR, JJ„ concur.
EXHIBIT 10.1


JOSEPH PETROLEUM EXPLORATION LICENSE NO.
339


EXTENSION LETTER (TRANSLATION)


 


 


State of Israel


 


Ministry of Energy and Water


 


Natural Resources Authority


 


Oil and Gas


 


3rd of Sivan, 5773


 


May 12th, 2013


 


Attn:


 


Mr. Victor G. Carrillo, President & COO


 


Zion Oil & Gas


 


Bareket 22 N. Industrial Area


 


Caesarea 38900


 


 


Dear Sir,


 


Subject: Joseph License/339 –
extension


 


Reference: your letter dated April 10th,
2012


 


In response to your request I hereby extend
the 339/ Joseph license until October 10th, 2013.


 


During the period of extension Zion Oil &
Gas will execute the following work plan:


 


		a.	Prepare and submit a detailed plan for the abandonment and plugging of the Maanit-Rehovot #2 and Maanit
–Joseph #3 wells until June 10th, 2013.



 


		b.	Complete the plugging and abandonment of the wells until October 1st, 2013, and submit
a detailed report on the above activities.



 


Sincerely,


 


Alexander Varshavski


 


Petroleum Commissioner
<PAGE>




                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                          ASCEND COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Year Ended December 31,
                                                  ----------------------------------------
                                                     1997            1996           1995
                                                  ----------      ---------       --------
<S>                                               <C>             <C>             <C>
Net income                                        $ (124,374)     $ 183,890       $ 52,945
                                                  ==========      =========       ========
Computation of weighted average
 common and common equivalent
 shares outstanding:

    Weighted average common shares outstanding       189,129        178,630        162,181

    Common equivalent shares attributable
      to stock options and warrants (treasury
      stock method)                                       --         17,616         13,035
                                                  ----------      ---------       --------
Shares used in computing net
 income (loss) per share - diluted (1)               189,129        196,246        175,216
                                                  ==========      =========       ========
Net income (loss) per share - diluted             $    (0.66)     $    0.94       $   0.30
                                                  ==========      =========       ========
Shares used in computing net
 income (loss) per share - basic                     189,129        178,630        162,181
                                                  ==========      =========       ========

Net income (loss) per share - basic               $    (0.66)     $    1.03       $   0.33
                                                  ==========      =========       ========

</TABLE>

(1)  Due to their anti-dilutive effect, 10,642 common equivalent shares
     attributable to stock options and warrants were excluded from the
     computation of net loss per share - diluted for the year ended December 31,
     1997.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2009 – Professional Tennis Registry v OHIM – Registro
Profesional de Tenis (PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY)**

**(Case T-168/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the figurative mark PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY as a Community trade mark – Earlier national and Community figurative mark RPT Registro Profesional de Tenis, S.L. and earlier national figurative mark
RPT European Registry of Professional Tennis – Relative ground for refusal – No likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

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 26, 43)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2007, as corrected (Case R 1050/2005‐1), concerning opposition proceedings between Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL and Professional Tennis Registry, Inc. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Professional Tennis Registry, Inc. |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY for goods and services in Classes 16, 25 and 41 – Application No 2826709 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National figurative marks RPT Registro Profesional de Tenis, S.L. and RPT European Registry of Professional Tennis for services in Class 41 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division; application for Community mark rejected for goods and services in Classes 16 and 41 |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 February 2007, as corrected (Case R 1050/2005‐1); |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Professional Tennis Registry, Inc.; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL, to bear its own costs. |
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 23.1








                               Consent of KPMG LLP


To Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-15877, 333-51681, and 333-79579) on Form S-8 of Northfield Laboratories Inc.
of our report dated July 2, 2001, relating to the balance sheets of Northfield
Laboratories Inc. as of May 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related statements of
operations, shareholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended May 31, 2001 and for the cumulative period from
June 19, 1985 (inception) through May 31, 2001, which report appears in the May
31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of Northfield Laboratories Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP



Chicago, Illinois
August 2, 2001
In the MATTER OF: B.L.A.

No. COA17-978

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: March 6, 2018

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.4


American Campus Communities Operating Partnership, L.P.


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I, Jonathan A. Graf, Chief Financial Officer of American Campus Communities Operating Partnership, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:




(i)The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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 10, 2012
/s/ Jonathan A. GrafJonathan A. GrafExecutive Vice President, Chief 
Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee 55 (“IEC TC 55”), by its Secretariat, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”), has filed written notification simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee 55, Rosslyn, VA. The nature and scope of IEC TC 55's standards development activities are: related to wires for electrical winding. IEC TC 55 currently maintains a series of IEC 60317 and IEC 60851 standards dealing with specifications and test methods for different types of winding wires. The standards developed by IEC TC 55 are published by NEMA.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 05-1984  Filed 2-1-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Florence BELL, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 80876.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 2, 2003.

Robert W. Lundt, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John Munson Morris, III, Adriane D. Crouse, Nicole E. Gorovsky, Asst. Attorneys Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., and MARY R. RUSSELL, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Florence Bell (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon her conviction by a jury of forgery, Section 570.090, RSMo 2000. The trial court sentenced Defendant to three years’ imprisonment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that
      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 of
      Pure Biofuels Corp. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Date:
                May 20, 2008/s/
                Luis GoyzuetaLuis
                Goyzueta
              Chief
                Executive Officer and Director




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
      required by Section 906, has been provided to Pure Biofuels Corp. and will
      be retained by Pure Biofuels Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45502

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

THOMAS EDWARD LANDERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: June 19, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of five years, for aggravated battery, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Lara E. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Thomas Edward Landers pled guilty to aggravated battery. I.C. §§ 18-903(a) and 18-

907(1)(b). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court 

sentenced Landers to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five 

years. Landers filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Landers appeals, 

asserting that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 
2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Landers’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

Section 906 CFO Certification

CERTIFICATION 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 Colony Resorts LVH Acquisitions, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Robert Schaffhauser, Executive Vice President of Finance, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.



|                                    |  |  |  |                       
|----------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------
|/s/ Robert Schaffhauser             |  |  |  | Date: November 7, 2008
|Robert Schaffhauser                 |  |  |  |                       
|Executive Vice President of Finance |  |  |  |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2397

USIEL ELIFAS DE LEON ROBLERO, a/k/a Amilcar Gonzalez Perez,

 Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: May 17, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Chad A. Readler, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Nancy K. Canter, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Usiel Elifas De Leon Roblero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to 

reconsider its decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of 

his application for cancellation of removal. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss 

the petition for review.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012), entitled “Denials of discretionary 

relief,” “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of 

relief under section . . . 1229b,” which is the section governing cancellation of removal. 

In this case, the IJ found, and the Board agreed, that Roblero failed to meet his burden of 

establishing that his United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship if he is returned to Mexico. We conclude that this 

determination is clearly discretionary in nature, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to 

review challenges to this finding absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of 

law. See Sattani v. Holder, 749 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 2014) (finding no jurisdiction to 

review determination that aliens failed to demonstrate requisite hardship to their U.S. 

citizen son); Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that 

the gatekeeper provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision 

of the [Board] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of removal.”); Okpa v. INS, 266 

F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001) (concluding, under transitional rules, that issue of hardship 

is committed to agency discretion and is not subject to appellate review). 
3

We have reviewed Roblero’s claims of error and conclude that he fails to raise a 

colorable constitutional claim or question of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). 

See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable 

constitutional claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized by 

§ 1252(a)(2)(D).” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for 

lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED