alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          28,944                   7,044
<SECURITIES>                                    18,492                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,713                   1,003
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (632)                   (174)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,068                   8,045
<PP&E>                                          22,750                   8,562
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (5,388)                 (1,649)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,641                  15,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,675                   5,381
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                      15
<COMMON>                                            23                       6
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,247                   4,726
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,641                  15,157
<SALES>                                         20,426                   5,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,426                   5,785
<CGS>                                            4,816                   1,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,208                  15,967
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (22,782)                (10,181)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 427                    (194)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (22,355)                (10,376)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (1)                     (2)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (22,355)                (10,377)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (22,355)                (10,377)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.15)                  (0.80)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.15)                  (0.80)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Wollemi Mining Corp. (the "Company")
on Form  10-Q  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2009 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haiting
Li,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and 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.

Date: November 16, 2009
                                          By: /s/ Haiting Li
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Haiting Li
                                              Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    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, Randy Gottfried, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Inktomi Corporation on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended September
30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Inktomi Corporation.

Dated: March 5, 2003                By: /s/ RANDY GOTTFRIED
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Randy Gottfried
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,277
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      409
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        316
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,881
<PP&E>                                          95,772
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,796
<BONDS>                                          1,035
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,000
<PREFERRED>                                          1<F1>
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,496
<SALES>                                          8,450
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,319
<CGS>                                            1,930
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,497
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (40,259)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       923
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (41,182)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (41,182)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (6.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.11)
<FN>
<F1>Represents par value of Reading Entertainment Series B preferred stock.
</FN>


</TABLE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 1 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MARSHALL LOUIS WASHINGTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-8047

(D.C. No. 95-CR-57-4-J)

(D. Wyo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Washington pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and

distribution of various controlled substances and was sentenced to 90 months

imprisonment and four years supervised release. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) &

846. Prior to sentencing, he sought leave to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds of

newly discovered evidence. He contended that his arrest, which led to a search incident
- 2 -

to arrest and discovery of contraband, was the result of execution of an invalid state bench

warrant. The bench warrant was issued after Mr. Washington failed to respond to an

order to show cause, however, the order was not served upon Mr. Washington, although

one attempt was made.

We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of

discretion, reversing only if the district court’s decision was unjust or unfair. United

States v. Carr, 80 F.3d 413, 419 (10th Cir. 1996). Had the district court determined that

Mr. Washington’s position on the bench warrant had merit, it would have allowed

withdrawal. R. Vol. Six, Tr. 58 (3/28/96 hearing). We need not discuss all of the factors

normally attendant to withdrawal of a guilty plea, see United States v. Guthrie, 64 F.3d

1510, 1513 (10th Cir. 1995), because the district court was correct that the bench warrant

was valid even though the underlying show cause order indicated only one unsuccessful

attempt at service. See Wyo. R. Cr. P. 42(c)(3). Having stopped Mr. Washington on

suspicion of driving under the influence, the arresting officer’s reliance on the bench

warrant was objectively reasonable. See Arizona v. Evans, 115 S. Ct. 1185, 1193-94

(1995). Thus, the arrest and search incident to arrest are not deficient and the district 
- 3 -

court did not abuse its discretion in holding Mr. Washington to his plea. 

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                               INKTOMI CORPORATION

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

C2B Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, doing business under the name
"Inktomi Corporation."

EScene Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation, doing business under the name
"Inktomi Corporation."

FastForward Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation, doing business under the
name "Inktomi Corporation."

Impulse! Buy Network, Inc., a California corporation, doing business under the
name "Inktomi Corporation."

Inktomi Australia Pty Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of
Australia, doing business as "Inktomi Australia Pty Limited."

Inktomi Canada Corporation, a corporation organized under the laws of New
Brunswick, Canada, doing business as "Inktomi Canada Corporation."

Inktomi Japan KK, a corporation organized under the laws of Japan, doing
business as "Inktomi Japan KK."

Inktomi Korea Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Korea, doing
business as "Inktomi Korea Inc."

Inktomi Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom,
doing business as "Inktomi Limited."

Inktomi SAS, a corporation organized under the laws of France, doing business as
"Inktomi SAS".

Inktomi SRL, a corporation organized under the laws of Italy, doing business as
"Inktomi SRL".

Ultraseek, Inc., a California corporation, doing business under the name
"Inktomi Corporation."

WebSpective Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation, doing business under the
name "Inktomi Corporation."
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 28, 2007 / Notices 9081 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

Open Meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer 

Advocacy Panel (Including the States 

of Florida, Georgia, Alabama, 

Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, 

and the Territory of Puerto Rico) 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 

3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 

conducted (via teleconference). The 

Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting 

public comments, ideas, and 

suggestions on improving customer 

service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

Tuesday, March 20, 2007, from 11:30 

a.m. ET. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sallie Chavez at 1–888–912–1227, or 

954–423–7979. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given pursuant to section 10 (a) 

(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open 

meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer 

Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, 

March 20, 2007, from 11:30 a.m. ET via 

a telephone conference call. If you 

would like to have the TAP consider a 

written statement, please call 1–888–

912–1227 or 954–423–7979, or write 

Sallie Chavez, TAP Office, 1000 South 

Pine Island Rd., Suite 340, Plantation, 

FL 33324. Due to limited conference 

lines, notification of intent to participate 

in the telephone conference call meeting 

must be made with Sallie Chavez. Ms. 

Chavez can be reached at 1–888–912–

1227 or 954–423–7979, or post 

comments to the Web site: http:// 

www.improveirs.org. 

The agenda will include: Various IRS 

issues. 

Dated: February 20, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. E7–3424 Filed 2–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF 

PEACE 

Notice; Sunshine Act Meeting 

DATE/TIME: Monday, March 12, 2007, 

9 a.m.–3:30 p.m. 

LOCATION: 1200 17th Street, NW., Suite 

200, Washington, DC 20036–3011. 

STATUS: Open Session—Portions may be 

closed pursuant to Subsection (c) of 

Section 552(b) of Title 5, United States 

Code, as provided in subsection 

1706(h)(3) of the United States Institute 

of Peace Act, Public Law 98–525. 

AGENDA: March 12, 2007 Board Meeting; 

Approval of Minutes of the One 

Hundred Twenty-Fifth Meeting 

(November 28, 2006) of the Board of 

Directors; Chairman’s Report; 

President’s Report; Budget Update; 

Consideration of Fellowship 

Applications; Other General Issues. 

CONTACT: Tessie F. Higgs, Executive 

Office, Telephone: (202) 429–3836. 

Dated: February 26, 2007. 

Patricia P. Thomson, 

Executive Vice President, United States 

Institute of Peace. 

[FR Doc. 07–938 Filed 2–26–07; 3:16 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6820–AR–M 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
# C_2011057EN.01002601.xml

| 23.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/26

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 February 2011

2011/C 57/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3667 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,63 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4554 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84584 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7870 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2844 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7515 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,495 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,73 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7045 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9655 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2290 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1824 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3635 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3491 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6469 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8243 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7490 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 542,10 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7640 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,9929 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4085 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 131,37 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1691 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,704 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,9817 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,862 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2807 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5583 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 61,8640 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3667

JPY

Japanese yen

113,63

DKK

Danish krone

7,4554

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84584

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7870

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2844

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7515

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,495

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,73

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7045

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9655

RON

Romanian leu

4,2290

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1824

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3635

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3491

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6469

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8243

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7490

KRW

South Korean won

1 542,10

ZAR

South African rand

9,7640

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,9929

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4085

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 131,37

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1691

PHP

Philippine peso

59,704

RUB

Russian rouble

39,9817

THB

Thai baht

41,862

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2807

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5583

INR

Indian rupee

61,8640

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
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 Reach Messaging Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shane Gau, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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, 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.






Date  November 24, 2010
By:
/s/ Shane GauShane GauChief Executive Officer




A certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

SEC Issues Working Group 

Teleconference July 24, 2009 

Conference Line: 866-659-0537 

Participant Pass Code: 9933701 

Draft Agenda 

I. DOW site 

A. Update on covered period report 

B. Identify any outstanding issues 

II. Metallurgical Labs

A. Discussion of SC&A report on 250 day issue 

B. NIOSH Response
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 Voice Assist, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donna Moore, 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.











/s/ Donna Moore


Donna Moore


Chief Financial Officer


May __, 2012
#### State of West Virginia *v.*Tom Peterman, Jr.

(No. 14429)

Decided December 11, 1979.

*76
      *Green, Ketchwm & Mills, Larry A. Bailey*for plaintiff in error.

*Chauncey H. Browning,*Attorney General, *David P. Cleek,*Assistant Attorney General, for defendent in error.

Per Curiam:

This appeal was docketed on February 8, 1979 and matured for decision on October 30, 1979. It is an appeal from a final order of the Circuit Court of Wayne County.

After an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court found the appellant was a delinquent child and sentenced him to the State Forestry Camp at Leckie. In this appeal, it is contended the evidence presented at the hearing failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is also contended the charges made, even if proved, would not constitute a delinquent act as defined by *W.Va. Code,*49-1-4. We conclude the State failed to meet its burden of proof and, accordingly, we find it unnecessary to reach the second point raised.

On March 1, 1978, a petition was filed alleging that on the 25th and 27th of February, 1978, Tom Peterman, Jr., a juvenile, “did attempt to enter the home of Mrs. Sybil Carder....” The State’s only witness at the adjudicatory hearing was Sybil Carder. She testified that on the night of February 25, her nine-year-old daughter Rachel, ran from her bedroom and exclaimed, “Tom is coming in the window.” “Tom Peterman is trying to get in the window.” Mrs. Carder testified she ran to the bedroom and “seen an object leaving the window like Tom Peterman.” She said she knew it was him because of his image.

On the night of the 27th, the occupant of another bedroom in Mrs. Carder’s house exclaimed, “There’s Tom again.” Mrs. Carder ran to the room but observed no one.

On cross-examination, Mrs. Carder related that on the night of the first incident, she had been approximately *77four feet from the window, it was dark in the room and outside and she didn’t see the person’s face.

At the adjudicatory stage of a juvenile proceeding the State has a constitutionally imposed burden to prove the juvenile’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. *In re Winship,*397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970).

It is not clear from the record what standard of proof the court below applied, but a review of the foregoing evidence, which was all of the evidence presented, clearly indicates the State failed to meet the burden of proving petitioner’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the case with directions to the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal. *Burks v. United States,*437 U.S. 1, 57 L.Ed.2d 1, 98 S.Ct. 2141 (1978); *State v.*Milam, _ W.Va. _, _ S.E.2d _ (1979) (No. 14060 November 20, 1979).

*Reversed and remanded with directions.*