alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4(h)(ii)

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                              AEP CAPITAL TRUST II

     THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF AEP Capital Trust II (the "Trust") is being
duly executed and filed by Wilmington Trust Company, a Delaware banking
corporation, Jeffrey D. Cross and Stephan T. Haynes, each an individual, as
trustees, to form a business trust under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12
Del. C. Section 3801 et seq.) (the Act).

1. NAME. The name of the business trust formed hereby is AEP Capital Trust II.

2. DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust
in the State of Delaware are Wilmington Trust Company, Rodney Square North, 1100
N. Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890, Attention: Corporate Trust
Administration.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate of Trust
in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act.

                                       WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY
                                       as Trustee


                                       By: /s/ W. Chris Sponenberg
                                           ----------------------------
                                           Name:  W. Chris Sponenberg
                                           Title: Vice President


                                           /s/ Jeffrey D. Cross
                                           ----------------------------
                                           as Trustee


                                           /s/ Stephan T. Haynes
                                           ----------------------------
                                           as Trustee
#### SILVITA ROUSEAU, Appellant, v. JAKE DIELEMAN and JAKE’S CRANE & RIGGING, INC., A Corporation, Respondents.

No. 7212

March 26, 1974

519 P.2d 1135

*113
      *Eric Zubel,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Ralph L. Denton,*of Las Vegas, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

We find no reversible error in the trial court’s order, which dismissed plaintiff’s action pursuant to NRCP 41(b), after presentation of her evidence. On review of the record, we believe the trial judge could properly determine, not only that plaintiff failed to prove any actual damage by reason of the defendants’ alleged trespass upon her land, but also that she failed to prove either of them was indeed responsible for the alleged trespass.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Annual Report of Global Gold Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jan E. Dulman, the Chief Financial
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: March 31, 2008                     /s/ Jan E. Dulman
                                            Jan E. Dulman
                                            Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62009-62010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21445]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 10205 and <greek-i> 10206]


Louisiana Disaster Number LA-00004

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 6.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1607-DR), dated 
September 24, 2005.
    Incident: Hurricane Rita.
    Incident Period: September 23, 2005 and continuing.
    Effective Date: October 18, 2005.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: November 23, 2005.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: June 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business 
Administration, Disaster Assistance Processing and Disbursement Center, 
14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 
6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of Louisiana, dated September 24, 2005, is 
hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by 
the disaster:


[[Page 62010]]


Primary Parish: Saint Tammany.
Contiguous Parishes/Counties:
    Louisiana: Washington. Mississippi: Hancock, Pearl River.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-21445 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.K., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

MATERIEL COMMAND, ROBINS AIR FORCE 

BASE, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0505

Issued: June 30, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On February 16, 2021 appellant sought an appeal from purported March 15, 2013 and 

September 9, 2020 decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards docketed the appeal as No. 21-0505.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

review of final adverse OWCP’s decisions issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final adverse decision of 

OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current appeal.2 As there is no 

final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, 

the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0505 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0505 is dismissed.

Issued: June 30, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7312

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAIED MOUSA RAMADAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:05-cr-00024-REP; 3:08-cv-00179)

Submitted: July 28, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Saied Mousa Ramadan, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Saied Mousa Ramadan seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Ramadan has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Ramadan’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
J

- S61011

- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v. CLARENCE LAUDENBERGER Appellant No. 562 MDA 2015 Appeal from the PCRA Order March 3 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 36

- CR

- 0001946

- 1996

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., WECHT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.  JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED NOVEMBER 17, 2015
In Miller v. Alabama , ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), the United States Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right for juveniles under the age of eighteen and held that “mandatory life withou t parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against ‘cruel and unusual punishments.’” ___ U.S. at ___, 132 S.Ct. at 2460. Our Supreme Court, however, has ruled that that the right announced in Miller does not apply retroactively. See Commonwealth v. Cunningham , 81 A.3d 1, 10 (Pa. 2013). In this appeal, from an order denying his third PCRA petition as untimely filed, Laudenberger presents a claim that he knows he cannot win in this Court:

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S61011

- 15

- 2

-

that our Supreme Court wrongly decided Cunningham . Laudenberger presents this issue in order to preserve it “for further litigation and appellate review[,] including review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and future litigation in the federal court system .” Appellant’s Brief, at 14. We, of course, are bound by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Cunningham

. See , e.g. , Commonwealth v. Friday , 90 A.2d 856, 859 (Pa. Supper. 1952) (“[Superior] Court is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of P ennsylvania.”); Act of June 24, 1895, P.L. 212, § 10, 17 P.S. § 198 (“Upon any question whatever before the said [Superior] [C]ourt the decision of the [S]upreme [C]ourt shall be received and followed as of binding authority.”). Thus, we cannot overturn C unningham . This Court has explained that Cunningham dictates that an appellant cannot use Miller to establish jurisdiction over an untimely PCRA petition in any Pennsylvania court. See Commonwealth v. Seskey , 86 A.3d 237, 243 (Pa. Super. 2014). See also Co mmonwealth v. Reed , 107 A.3d 137 (Pa. Super. 2014). The PCRA court committed no error in summarily dismissing Laudenberger’s PCRA petition as untimely filed.J

- S61011

- 15

- 3

-

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/17/2015
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5267 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5267

 To amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 to accelerate 
the increase in the amount of Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease revenues 
                      that is shared with States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2010

   Mr. Cao introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 to accelerate 
the increase in the amount of Gulf of Mexico oil and gas lease revenues 
                      that is shared with States.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ACCELERATION OF INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF GULF OF MEXICO OIL AND 
              GAS LEASE REVENUES SHARED WITH STATES.

    The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (division C of 
Public Law 109-432; 43 U.S.C. 1331 note) is amended--
            (1) in section 102(9)(A)--
                    (A) in clause (i), by striking ``2016'' and 
                inserting ``2010''; and
                    (B) in clause (ii)--
                            (i) by striking ``2017'' and inserting 
                        ``2011''; and
                            (ii) by striking ``2016'' and inserting 
                        ``2010''; and
            (2) in section 105---
                    (A) in paragraph (1)--
                            (i) in the paragraph heading, by striking 
                        ``2016'' and inserting ``2010''; and
                            (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking 
                        ``2016'' and inserting ``2010''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2)--
                            (i) in the paragraph heading, by striking 
                        ``2017'' and inserting ``2011''; and
                            (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking 
                        ``2017'' and inserting ``2011''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                                  XICOR, INC.
 
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       YEAR ENDED
                                                      --------------------------------------------
                                                      DECEMBER 31,    DECEMBER 31,    DECEMBER 31,
                                                          1997            1996            1995
                                                      ------------    ------------    ------------
<S>                                                   <C>             <C>             <C>
Net income (loss) available to common shareholders
  (1)...............................................  $(2,531,000)    $13,835,000     $10.036,000
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========
Shares used for per share calculation:
Basic calculation:
  Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding during the period..................   18,967,000      18,693,000      18,216,000
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========
Diluted calculation:
  Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding during the period..................   18,967,000      18,693,000      18,216,000
  Equivalent common shares attributed to dilutive
     employee stock options (2).....................           --       1,127,000         815,000
                                                      -----------     -----------     -----------
          Total common and common equivalent
            shares..................................   18,967,000      19,820,000      19,031,000
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========
Earnings per share:
  Basic.............................................  $     (0.13)    $      0.74     $      0.55
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========
  Diluted...........................................  $     (0.13)    $      0.70     $      0.53
                                                      ===========     ===========     ===========
</TABLE>
 
---------------
(1) The same net income amounts were used for basic earnings per share and
    diluted earnings per share for each of the three years in the period ended
    December 31, 1997.
 
(2) Equivalent common shares of 626,280 were not included for the year ended
    December 31, 1997 as they were antidilutive.
#### CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM v. RAYMOND S. SUTCLIFFE, JR., and wife, KATIE SUTCLIFFE; FRANK M. BELL, JR., Substitute Trustee, and FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION

No. 7421SC35

(Filed 20 February 1974)

Eminent Domain § 6— before and after value — erroneous assumption by witness

In an action by a city to condemn a 20-foot wide permanent easement and a 20-foot wide construction easement across defendants’ land for installation of a sewer pipeline, the trial court erred in refusing to strike the testimony of defendants’ expert as to the difference in value of defendants’ property before and after the taking where his testimony was based on the erroneous assumption that the city was taking a 60-foot wide permanent easement.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Wood, Judge,*28 May 1973 Civil Session, Forsyth Superior Court.

This is a civil action instituted by the City of Winston-Salem for the condemnation of land belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Sutcliffe and subject to an outstanding deed of trust held by First Federal Savings and Loan Association (Frank M. Bell, Jr., Substitute Trustee). The land is located at the junction of the rights of way of 1-40 and Old Vineyard Road. The City of Winston-Salem proposed to take a 20-foot wide permanent easement and an additional 20-foot wide construction easement from the northwest corner of the property bordering the 1-40 right of way to install a sewer pipeline. From a judgment awarding the defendants $4,723.00 in compensation, the plaintiff appealed.

*Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice by Donald A. Donadío for plaintiff appellant.*

*White and Crwnpler by James G. White for defendant ap-pellees.*

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The plaintiff assigns as error the failure of the trial court to grant the plaintiff’s motion to strike the testimony of the defendants’ expert, Mr. L. C. McClenny. Mr. McClenny based his testimony as to the value of the property before and after the taking apparently on the erroneous assumptions that the City was taking a 60-foot easement, and that the interest taken was *749one 60-foot wide permanent easement rather than a 20-foot wide permanent easement plus a 20-foot wide construction easement. Mr. McClenny testified that the difference in the value of the property before and after the taking was $4,723.00. The jury found that the difference in value was $4,720.00. The plaintiff’s expert testified that the difference in value was $625.00. The plaintiff was clearly prejudiced by the testimony of Mr. Mc-Clenny, and the testimony should have been stricken. *Highway Commission v. Matthis,*2 N.C. App. 233, 163 S.E. 2d 35 (1968); *Elsevier v. Machine Shop,*9. N.C. App. 539, 176 S.E. 2d 875 (1970); *Morrison v. Walker,*179 N.C. 587, 103 S.E. 139 (1920); and *Robbins v. Trading Post, Inc.,*251 N.C. 663, 111 S.E. 2d 884 (1960). Furthermore, the trial judge did nothing to correct the erroneous assumption in his instructions to the jury. We therefore grant a new trial.

We do not deem it necessary to consider the plaintiff’s other assignments of error as they may not occur on retrial.

New trial.

Judges Hedrick and Baley concur.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.J., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, TRIPLER 

ARMY MEDICAL CENTER, Fort Shaftner, HI,

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0365

Issued: March 4, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 8, 2021, appellant sought an appeal from a purported June 2, 2017 decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 21-0365.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed his appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final 

adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current 

appeal.3 As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly 

 

1 5 U.S.C. §101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

Id.
2

exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0365 must be 

dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0365 is dismissed.

Issued: March 4, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
##### 



EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF CONEXANT SYSTEMS, INC.

State or Other JurisdictionSubsidiary
    
    of Incorporation or OrganizationBrooktree Broadband Holding, Inc.
    
    DelawareBrooktree International Ltd.
    
    Cayman IslandsBrooktree Technologies Ltd.
    
    Cayman IslandsConcentric Sub, Inc.
    
    DelawareConexant Broadband Communications (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaConexant Canada ULC
    
    CanadaConexant Digital Infotainment Limited
    
    United KingdomConexant Foreign Sales Corporation
    
    BarbadosConexant Information Technology, LLC
    
    DelawareConexant Korea Ltd.
    
    KoreaConexant Mauritius Ltd.
    
    MauritiusConexant Semiconductor (Canada),
Inc.
    
    CanadaConexant Systems Asia Pacific Limited
    
    Hong Kong, Peoples Republic of ChinaConexant Systems France S.A.S
    
    FranceConexant Systems Germany G.m.b.H
    
    GermanyConexant Systems Holdings Limited
    
    United KingdomConexant Systems Iceland Ltd.
    
    IcelandConexant Systems, Inc.
    
    NevadaConexant Systems India Private Limited
    
    IndiaConexant Systems Israel (1996) Ltd.
    
    IsraelConexant Systems Israel Commercial Ltd.
    
    IsraelConexant Systems K.K
    
    JapanConexant Systems Scandinavia AB
    
    SwedenConexant Systems Singapore Pte. Limited
    
    SingaporeConexant Systems Taiwan Co., Ltd.
    
    TaiwanConexant Systems UK Limited
    
    United KingdomConexant Systems Worldwide, Inc.
    
    DelawareHyperXS Communications, Inc.
    
    DelawareIstari Design, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaSierra Imaging, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaNPS Holding, Inc.
    
    MassachusettsNetplane Systems International, LLC
    
    Delaware