alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009153EN.01000201.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/2

---

Designation of the Judge replacing the President as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures

2009/C 153/02

On 16 June 2009, the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to designate Judge Papasavvas to replace the President of the Court for the purpose of deciding applications for interim measures where the latter is absent or prevented from dealing with them, in respect of the period from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010.

---
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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB (the “Report”) of CanWest
        Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended April 30, 2006, the
        undersigned T. Murray Wilson, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
        Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
        as
        adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
        to the
        best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:
 
 (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\
        T.
        Murray Wilson
 T.
        Murray
        Wilson,
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 
 _________________
 
 A
        signed
        original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
        and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**

**Name of subsidiary (jurisdiction of incorporation)**

Powerwave Technologies Singapore Pte. Ltd. (Singapore) 

Powerwave Services, Inc. (Delaware) 

Powerwave Europe, Inc. (Delaware) 

Powerwave UK Limited (UK) 

Powerwave Technologies Canada, Ltd. (Canada) 

Powerwave Technologies France SAS (France) 

P-Wave, Ltd. (Israel) 

Powerwave Technologies Hong Kong, Ltd. (Hong Kong) 

Powerwave Technologies(Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (China) 

Milcom International, Incorporated 

Milcom International Ltd. 

Powerwave Finland OY (Finland) 

Powerwave Technologies Sweden Holdings AB (Sweden) 

LGP Allgon Holding AB (Sweden) 

Powerwave Sweden AB (Sweden) 

Allgon Systems AB (Sweden) 

Allgon Innovation AB (Sweden) 

Powerwave Technologies (Wuxi) Co. Ltd. (China) 

Allgon Systems Ltd. (UK) 

LGP Allgon OY (Finland) 

Powerwave Corporation Ltd. (Hong Kong) 

Powerwave Enterprises, Inc. (Texas)

Powerwave Enterprises LLC (Delaware) 

Powerwave Ltd. (TexasLimited Partership) 

Powerwave Technologies Brazil Comercio de Equipmentos de telecommuicoces Ltda. (Brazil) 

Allgon Telecom Ltda (Argentina) 

Allgon Telecom K.K. (Japan) 

Allgon International AB (Sweden) 

Powerwave Technologies Sweden AB (Sweden)

Powerwave Technologies Germany GmbH (Germany) 

LGP TelecomLtda. (Brazil) 

Powerwave Technologies UK, Ltd. (UK) 

PowerwaveSingapore Pte Ltd. (Singapore) 

Powerwave Technologies Pty Ltd. (Australia) 

LGP Telecom Shanghai Ltd. (China) 

Powerwave Technologies Estonia OÜ (Estonia) 

Arkivator Falkoping AB (Sweden) 

MG Instruments AB (Sweden) 

KB IR Falevi (Sweden limited liability company) 

REMEC International HoldingsSRL (Barbados) 

RMPI LLC (California) 

REMEC ManufacturingPhilippines, Inc. (Philippines) 

Microwave Ventures, Inc. (Philippines) 

REMEC Mersum Oy (Finland) 

REMEC Finland Oy (Finland) 

REMEC Oy (Finland) 

REMEC Inc. SRL (Costa Rica) 

REMECChina Holdings SRL (Barbados) 

REMEC Wireless Telecommunications (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (China) 

REMEC International, Inc. (Barbados) 

REMEC Wireless Systems, Inc. (Delaware) 

Powerwave Wireless, Inc. (Delaware)
Exhibit 32.01





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 Geo Point Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey Jensen, Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(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 result of operations of the Company.











/s/ Jeffrey Jensen


Jeffrey Jensen


Principal Executive Officer


and Principal Financial Officer


August 22, 2011





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 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

October 22, 2012

p1015

Order 

October 22, 2012

145402

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145402

COA: 295573

Wayne CC: 08-018563-01-FC

DEVON BELL, a/k/a DEVON CHEO BELL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 24, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS FOR ITS FISCAL QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,660,302
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,721
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     24,489
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,928,983
<PP&E>                                      10,922,760
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,616,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,612,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,612,984
<BONDS>                                        842,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       123,688
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,886,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,612,984
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,250,159
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,072,273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                89,637
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,675,644)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,675,644)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ROBERT S. THOMPSON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 5:10cv186/MCR/EMT

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 12, 2012 (doc. 38). The parties have been furnished a copy

of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No timely

objections have been filed. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the record, the court

concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 23) is DENIED.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2012.

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-00186-MCR-EMT Document 39 Filed 07/16/12 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5238 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5238

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  1234 Saint Johns Place in Brooklyn, New York, as the ``Major Robert 
                       Odell Owens Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MAJOR ROBERT ODELL OWENS POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1234 Saint Johns Place in Brooklyn, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Major Robert Odell Owens Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Major 
Robert Odell Owens Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT 32.2



CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Kevin T. Michaels, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended January 2, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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: April 8, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS
|                    |  |     |  |                       |  | Kevin T. Michaels                                         
|                    |  |     |  |                       |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|                    |  |     |  |                       |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
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 on Form 10-Q of Trevenex Resources, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Scott Wetzel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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.





|                     |                        
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|Dated:  May 14, 2009 | By: /s/ Scott Wetzel   
|                     | Scott Wetzel           
|                     | Chief Executive Officer



This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The Honorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3585

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Melvin Leroy Bedell, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: March 10, 1998

Filed: March 18, 1998

_____________

Before BOWMAN, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD,

Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

The government appeals a downward departure ordered by the District Court1

at the sentencing of Melvin Leroy Bedell following his guilty plea to one count of

embezzlement. Because the government failed to make a timely objection to either the

absence of advance notice of the court's intention to depart downward on the ground

the court in fact used at sentencing or the departure itself, and thus failed to give the

court an opportunity to correct its errors, our review is for plain error only.
-2-

We agree with the government that the District Court erred and that the error

was plain. We do not agree, however, that the case presents plain error of the sort that

requires reversal. Applying the plain-error standard of review of United States v.

Olano, 113 S. Ct. 1770 (1993), we sustain the sentence imposed by the District Court.

AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
daio_ex4-6





 







EXHIBIT 4.6



DATA I/O CORPORATION



DESCRIPTION OF DATA I/O CORPORATION’S COMMON
STOCK


 

 


The
common stock of Data I/O Corporation is its only class of
securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).

 


The
following description of our Common Stock is a summary and does not
purport to be complete. It is subject to and qualified in its
entirety by reference to our Restated Articles of Incorporation and
Certificate of Designation, Preferences and Rights of Series A
Junior Participating Preferred Stock (the “Articles”) and our Amended and
Restated Bylaws (the “Bylaws”), each of which attached
as exhibit to the Annual Report on Form 10-K. We are incorporated
in the State of Washington and are subject to the Washington
Business Corporation Act, Title 23B of the Revised Code of
Washington.

 



Authorized Capital Shares

 


Our
authorized capital shares are thirty-five million (35,000,000),
consisting of thirty million (30,000,000) shares of Common Stock
(“Common
Stock”), and five million (5,000,000) shares of
Preferred Stock. Two hundred thousand (200,000) shares of Series A
Junior Participating Preferred Stock have been designated. The
outstanding shares of our Common Stock are fully paid and
nonassessable. There are no shares of Preferred Stock
outstanding.

 



Voting Rights

 


Holders
of Common Stock are entitled to one vote per share on all matters
voted on by the shareholders, including the election of directors.
Our Common Stock does not have cumulative voting
rights.

 



Dividend Rights

 


The
holders of Common Stock are entitled to receive dividends, if any,
as may be declared from time to time by the Board of Directors in
its discretion out of funds legally available for the payment of
dividends.

 



Liquidation Rights

 


Holders
of Common Stock will share ratably in all assets legally available
for distribution to our shareholders in the event of
dissolution.

 



Other Rights and Preferences

 


Our
Common Stock has no sinking fund or redemption provisions or
preemptive, conversion or exchange rights. Holders of Common Stock
may act by unanimous written consent.

 



Potential Limitations on Rights of Holders of Common
Stock

 


Our
Articles authorize our board of directors to issue up to 5,000,000
shares of Preferred Stock and to determine the price, rights,
preferences, privileges and restrictions, including voting rights,
of those shares without any further vote or action by the
shareholders. Two hundred thousand (200,000) shares of Series A
Junior Participating Preferred Stock have been designated, but none
are outstanding. The rights of the holders of Common Stock may be
subject to, and may be adversely affected by, the rights of the
holders of any Preferred Stock that may be issued in the
future.

 



Listing


 


The
Common Stock is traded on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC under the
trading symbol “DAIO.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:10cr23/LAC

DENNIS KEEN,

Defendant.

___________________________________________/

ORDER

1. Defendant’s Motion to Postpone Voluntary Surrender Date (Doc. 30) is

GRANTED to the extent that Defendant’s August 18, 2010,surrender date is POSTPONED

until further Order of the Court.

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, and every thirty (30) days

thereafter until the Court Orders otherwise, Defendant shall file with the Court an updated

report on his medical condition and his prescribed course of treatment, if any. The Court will

assign Defendant a new surrender date in due course based upon the information received.

ORDERED this 17 day of August, 2010.

th

s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge
#### WILLIE MAE GIBBS v. LILLIAN JONES, Administratrix of the Estate of PENNIE EDWARDS, Deceased.

(Filed 8 April, 1964.)

Executors and Administrators § 24a—

In *this*action to recover for personal services rendered decedent the evidence *is helé*sufficient to be submitted to the jury under authority of *Johnson v. Sanders,*260 N.C. 291.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Cowper, J.,*October Civil Session of GeeeNB.

Civil action to recover for personal services rendered a decedent. Plaintiff was the illegitimate daughter of Joe Edwards. When she was less than a year old her mother “gave her” to Joe and his wife, Pennie Edwards, the defendant’s intestate. Joe and Pennie never had any children and they reared plaintiff as if she were their own. After her marriage in 1954, plaintiff and her husband lived intermittently with Joe and Pennie. In the fall of 1956 they moved into a house owned by Joe just across the highway from his residence. Joe died on May 7, 1958. *611The small farm which he and Pennie had owned as tenants by the en-tireties then became hers by survivorship. Pennie died on January 8, 1960 at the age of fifty-four.

Plaintiff alleged that for five years prior to the death of Pennie Edwards she rendered valuable services both to Pennie and Joe upon their promise to will all of their real and personal property to her and her infant son; that each failed to execute a will; and that she is entitled to compensation in the principal sum of $7,480.00 from the estate of Pennie Edwards.

On the trial, plaintiff sought to recover only for services rendered Pennie after the death of Joe. Her evidence tended to establish the following facts: Plaintiff performed services for Pennie before and after the death of Joe. On numerous occasions after his death, Pennie told plaintiff in the presence of others that she wanted her to have the house and lot on which she was then living and that she wanted plaintiff’s son to have another house. After Joe died, Pennie usually came across the road to have breakfast with plaintiff who, as soon as she had finished her own, would go over and do Pennie’s housework. Each day plaintiff cooked, cleaned, washed and ironed for Pennie, fed her pigs, and chased them when they got out. On clear days, she swept her yard. She also worked for her in .the field and in the garden and “pulled wood out of the woods to cook with.” The services which plaintiff rendered to Pennie Edwards after the death of Joe were reasonably worth fifteen to twenty dollars a week. Pennie’s nearest relatives were brothers and sisters whom she seldom, if ever, saw.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, defendant’s motion for nonsuit was allowed. From a judgment dismissing the action plaintiff appealed.

*Fred W. Harrison for plaintiff appellant.*

*Walter G. Sheppard for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to her, was sufficient to take this case to the jury under the rules set out in *Johnson v. Sanders,*260 N.C. 291, 132 S.E. 2d 620.

Reversed.