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

---

Exhibit 13.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 17 CFR 240.13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant toss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

In connection with the annual report
on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 of ECtel Ltd. (the
Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Commission) on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 17 CFR
240.13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Michael Neumann, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify that:

| | (1) | the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 12, 2009

|/s/ Michael Neumann
Michael Neumann
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 



---

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,889
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,094<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     72,374
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,332
<PP&E>                                          79,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,057
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 240,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,041
<BONDS>                                          9,036
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,822
<OTHER-SE>                                     121,910
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   240,609
<SALES>                                         76,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,593
<CGS>                                           57,348
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (535)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,040
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,414
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,626
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,490
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
<FN>
<F1>Accounts Receivable, Trade are reported net of allowance for doubtful
accounts in Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. McNEIL

No. 180 A 81.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 132.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 March 1982. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 3 March 1982.
#### STATE v. WILLIAMS

No. 102.

Case below: 32 N.C. App. 204.

Motion by defendant to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 5 April 1977.
#### STATE v. BAUM

No. 211 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 633.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 August 1977.
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-16      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 1 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-16      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 2 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-16      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 3 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-16      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 4 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-16      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 5 of 5
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Holston Banks, III, * From the 118th District Court

of Howard County,

Trial Court No. 14870.

Vs. No. 11-18-00337-CR * December 31, 2020

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                KMART CORPORATION
                  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

         In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Kmart
Corporation for the period ended October 30, 2002, I, James B. Adamson, Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Kmart Corporation, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         1. this Form 10-Q for the period ended October 30, 2002 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 this Form 10-Q for the period ended
October 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Kmart Corporation.


         Date:    December 23, 2002

    /s/ James B. Adamson
    --------------------------
    James B. Adamson
    Chairman of the Board and
    Chief Executive Officer



                                       53
##### **Exhibit 23.3**

 

### **CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**

 

Sproule Associates Limited hereby consents to the incorporation byreference by Carbon Energy Corporation

Form 10-K to the SEC of data derived from our reserve reports, relatingto the oil and gas reserves of Carbon Energy Canada Corporation, as follows:

 

Evaluation of the P&NG Reserves of CEC ResourcesLtd. (As of December 31, 2002), dated February 19, 2003

Evaluation of the P&NG Reserves of CEC ResourcesLtd. (As of December 31, 2001), dated February 27, 2002

Evaluation of the P&NG Reserves of CEC ResourcesLtd. (As of December 31, 2000), dated January 26, 2001

 

Sproule Associates Limited also consents to the incorporation byreference of our report included in this Form 10-K into Carbon Energy Corporation’spreviously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8, File No. 333-50242and File No. 333-60444.

 
|                | /s/ SPROULE ASSOCIATES LIMITED |   |
|---------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
| Calgary, Alberta    |                           |
| March 28, 2003 |                           |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 10.27

| |                   
| | ------------------
| | 1585 Broadway     
| | New York, NY 10036
| | tel. 212 761-4000 



| |                 
| | ----------------
| | January 17, 2002

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

Mr. Asghar D. Mostafa
President & CEO
Advanced Switching Communications, Inc.
8330 Boone Boulevard, 5th Floor
Vienna, Virginia 22182

Dear Asghar:

Pursuant to our recent discussions, this letter will confirm that Morgan Stanley
& Co. Incorporated (Morgan Stanley) and Advanced Switching Communications,
Inc. (ASC) have agreed to modify certain provisions of the engagement letter,
dated as of October 24, 2001 (the Engagement Letter), between Morgan Stanley
and ASC as described below. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in the Engagement Letter.

We hereby agree that if a Transaction is accomplished, the Transaction Fee will
be $1,250,000. We further agree that $625,000 will become payable and is to be
paid by ASC by wire transfer upon the signing of a definitive agreement. The
remaining $625,000 of the Transaction Fee will become payable and is to be paid
by ASC by wire transfer in accordance with the terms of the Engagement Letter.

We confirm that the remainder of the terms of the Engagement Letter and the
related Indemnity Letter dated October 24, 2001 remain in full force and effect.





---



##### 





If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please indicate by signing and
returning one copy of this letter, which will constitute our agreement with
respect to the subject matter hereof.

| |                                  
| | ---------------------------------
| | Very truly yours,                
|
| | MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INCORPORATED

| |     |                                                  
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ James M. HeadJames M. Head
Executive Director

Accepted:

ADVANCED SWITCHING COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

|       |                      | 
|------ | -------------------- | 
|By:    | /s/ Sherry L.
Rhodes
|       |                     
|Title: | VP, GC              
|       |                     
|Date:  | January 25, 2002    
|       |
#### CITY OF DURHAM v. DEVELOPMENT CORP.

No. 1 PC.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 210.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 27 August 1975.
Case 1:07-cv-03469-PKL Document 6 Filed 07/05/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cr-00376-VM Document 11 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cr-00376-VM Document 11 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 2 of 2
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Charles E. Drimal, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Beverly A. Cummings, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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.

 

 

/s/  Charles E. Drimal, Jr.

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

President

Chief Executive Officer/

August 11, 2005

 

/s/  Beverly A. Cummings

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

Executive Vice President

Chief Financial Officer

August 11, 2005
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB     Document 1      Filed 04/23/2007     Page 1 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB     Document 1      Filed 04/23/2007     Page 2 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB     Document 1      Filed 04/23/2007     Page 3 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB     Document 1      Filed 04/23/2007     Page 4 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB     Document 1      Filed 04/23/2007     Page 5 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB     Document 1      Filed 04/23/2007     Page 6 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB     Document 1      Filed 04/23/2007     Page 7 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB     Document 1      Filed 04/23/2007     Page 8 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB     Document 1      Filed 04/23/2007     Page 9 of 10

Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB     Document 1      Filed 04/23/2007     Page 10 of 10
#### FOREMAN v. BELL

No. 262P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 625.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 13 July 1982.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JON ANTHONY SCHWEDER, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0267 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Navajo County

No. S0900CR20090633

The Honorable Melinda K. Hardy, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Navajo County Attorney’s Office, Holbrook

By Bradley W. Carlyon

Counsel for Respondent

Jon Anthony Schweder, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 1-10-2023
STATE v. SCHWEDER

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge Peter 

B. Swann1 delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Jon Anthony Schweder seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is 

petitioner’s fifth successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

1 Judge Peter B. Swann was a sitting member of this court when the 

matter was assigned to this panel of the court. He retired effective 

November 28, 2022. In accordance with the authority granted by Article 6, 

Section 3, of the Arizona Constitution and pursuant to Arizona Revised 

Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 12-145, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme 

Court has designated Judge Swann as a judge pro tempore in the Court of 

Appeals for the purpose of participating in the resolution of cases assigned 

to this panel during his term in office and the period during which his 

vacancy remains open and for the duration of Administrative Order 2022-

162.
STATE v. SCHWEDER

Decision of the Court

3

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE ALLOT COMMUNICATIONS LTD. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION 

This Document Relates To: 

ALL ACTIONS 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Master File No. 1:07-cv-03455-RJH 

NOTICE OF FIRM NAME CHANGE

To: Attorney Admission Clerk and All Other Parties 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE of the following attorney information change(s) for 

Kim Elaine Miller. I am a U.S.D.C., Southern District of New York attorney. My Bar 

Number is: KM-6996. 

Law Firm/Government Agency Association 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the law firm of Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC has 

changed its name to KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC. The addresses, telephone and 

facsimile numbers will remain the same. Please update your records accordingly. 

I will continue to be counsel of record on the above-entitled case. 

DATED: April 24, 2009 /s/ Kim Elaine Miller__ _ 

 Kim Elaine Miller (KM-6996) 

 KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 

 12 East 41st Street - 12th Floor 

 New York, NY 10017 
 Telephone: (212) 696-3730 

 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 

 

 KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 

 Lewis Kahn

650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150 

New Orleans, LA 70130 

Telephone: (504) 455-1400 

Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 

GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 

Robin Bronzaft Howald (RH-9974) 

Frederick W. Gerkens, III (FG-7595) 

1430 Broadway, Ste. 1603 

New York, New York 10018 

Telephone: (212) 382-2221 

Facsimile: (212) 382-3944 

 

 THE LAW OFFICE OF JACOB SABO 

 Jacob Sabo 

 The Tower No.3 Daniel Frisch St., 15th Floor 

 Tel Aviv, Israel 64731 

 Telephone: 011 972 3 607 8888 

 Facsimile: 011 972 3 607 8889 

 Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs & the Class 

 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this document was filed on April 24, 2009 through the ECF 

system and will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the 

Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). 

 /s/ Kim Elaine Miller
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2003 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to designate a 3-digit 

dialing code for veterans in crisis. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2019 

Mr. MANCHIN (for himself, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. TESTER, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, and Mr. SULLIVAN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation 

A BILL 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to 

designate a 3-digit dialing code for veterans in crisis. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Suicide Prevention by 

5 Eliminating Excessive Digits Act of 2019’’ or the 

6 ‘‘SPEED Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF 3-DIGIT DIALING CODE FOR VET8 ERANS IN CRISIS. 

9 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2003 IS

1 (1) the term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal 

2 Communications Commission; and 

3 (2) the term ‘‘covered dialing code’’ means a 

4 simple, easy-to-remember, 3-digit dialing code. 

5 (b) DESIGNATION.—As soon as practicable after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act, the Commission, in con7 sultation with the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health 

8 and Substance Use and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

9 shall designate a covered dialing code that veterans may 

10 use to reach a national suicide prevention and mental 

11 health crisis hotline system, which system may be— 

12 (1) the Veterans Crisis Line; 

13 (2) the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline; or 

14 (3) another hotline. 

15 (c) INCORPORATION OF STUDY FINDINGS.— 

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—In designating a covered di17 aling code under subsection (b), the Commission 

18 shall incorporate the findings of the study conducted 

19 under section 3(a) of the National Suicide Hotline 

20 Improvement Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–233; 

21 132 Stat. 2424). 

22 (2) PRIORITIZING IMPLEMENTATION SPEED.— 

23 Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to au24 thorize the Commission to delay the designation of 

25 a covered dialing code under subsection (b) until 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2003 IS

1 after the Commission submits the report under sec2 tion 3(b) of the National Suicide Hotline Improve3 ment Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–233; 132 Stat. 

4 2424). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50166

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEITH VERNON HOSTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(W-91-CR-168-1)

September 23, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

K eith Vernon Hoster appeals the district court’s denial of his m otion to

vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the1 Jones v. Estelle

, 693 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1982) (case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

because habeas petitioner failed to file notice of appeal until 13 months after entry of

judgment), cert

. denied , 460 U.S. 1072 (1983).

2 116 S.Ct. 2135 (1996) (a forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881 is civil in nature and is an in

rem proceeding).

2 subsequent denial of his “Supplemental Addendum to Movant’s 2255 Motion.”

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider Hoster’s appeal from the denial of

his section 2255 motion because the notice of appeal is untimely, and Hoster failed

t o file an appropriate motion under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6). 1 Accordingly, that

portion of the appeal is DISMISSED.

A ssuming without deciding that the district court had jurisdiction ove r the

“Supplemental Addendum,” we conclude that the district cou rt did not err in

rejecting same. Hoster’s contention that the administrative forfeiture violated the

double jeopardy clause is foreclosed by the recent opinion of the Supreme Court

in United States v. Ursery

. 2 An i n rem civil forfeiture was held to be neither

punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause. The appeal

from the district court’s denial of Hoster’s “Supplemental Addendum” is therefore

AFFIRMED.

Hoster’s motion for leave to file a reply brief out-of-time is DENIED.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-2000
<CASH>                                           7,314
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                       199
<INVENTORY>                                      8,065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,371
<PP&E>                                          21,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,687
<BONDS>                                          4,394
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,080
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,490
<SALES>                                          8,452
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,452
<CGS>                                            7,046
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,046
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,976
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     6
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  74
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (520)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (163)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (357)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (357)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)


</TABLE>
#### HARRIS v. RACING, INC. and HYDE v. RACING, INC.

No. 105 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 597.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 12 January 1982.