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

<ARTICLE> 5
       

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1998
<CASH>                                       1,808,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,249,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,707,000
<INVENTORY>                                 21,285,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            70,200,000
<PP&E>                                      45,557,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,412,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             147,255,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,003,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,985,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  86,738,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               147,255,000
<SALES>                                     27,975,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,003,000
<CGS>                                       17,426,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,426,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,875,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             395,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,693,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,023,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,670,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 398,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,272,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

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, Kenneth J. Saunders, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
except for the failure to timely file the report, the Annual Report of Peregrine Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004 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 fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Peregrine Systems, Inc.

Date:
December 20, 2004

| |  | /s/KENNETH J. SAUNDERSKenneth J. Saunders
Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Peregrine Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Peregrine Systems, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit 12.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Mandeep Chawla, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Celestica Inc.;

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
| Date:   April 25, 2019 |                      |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                        | /s/   Mandeep Chawla      |
|                        | Mandeep   Chawla          |
|                        | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Peoples-Sidney Financial Corporation
(the "Corporation") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification
(the "Report"), I, Debra Geuy, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the
Corporation, 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 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 Corporation.


/s/ Debra Geuy
-----------------------------------
Debra Geuy, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer

Date: September 26, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or another
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Peoples-Sidney Financial
Corporation and will be retained by Peoples-Sidney Financial Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.

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


                                                                             49.
(No. 5526.

December 27, 1930.)

#### In the Matter of the Delinquency of LELAND ALLMON, a Minor Child. STATE, Respondent, v. LELAND ALLMON and BELLE LYNCH, Appellants.

[294 Pac. 528.]

*224J. W. Porter and J. W. Taylor, for Appellants.

E. V. Larson, Prosecuting Attorney, for Eespondent.

*225GIVENS, C. J.

On an information charging that a minor was a juvenile delinquent, specifying instances of delinquency, and that his mother, the only parent, was neglecting the child and was not exercising sufficient or any control over him, after due notice, and a hearing at which the mother was present and represented by counsel, the court committed him to the state industrial school.

Appellant urges against the judgment of the district court, sustaining the probate court, that art. 20, chap. 41, C. S., prior to its amendment by Sess. Laws of 1927, chap. 167, did not afford the parent due process of law, which is correct. *(Martin v. Vincent,*34 Ida. 432, 201 Pac. 492.)

No doubt to remedy this situation, the legislature passed the amendments in 1927 Sess. Laws, chap. 167, which provide for notice to the parent, and the issue, and a complete hearing, as to the neglect, or unfitness of the parent to have the custody of the child, specifying findings of neglect or unfitness which the court must make before the child may be taken from the parent, thus affording the parent due process. *(In re Sharp,*15 Ida. 120, 96 Pac. 563, 18 L. P. A., N. S., 886; *Allen v. Williams,*31 Ida. 309, 171 Pac. 493; *In re Martin,*29 Ida. 716, 161 Pac. 573; *Jain v. Priest,*30 Ida. 273, 164 Pac. 364; *Martin v. Vincent, supra;*12 C. J., pp. 1210, 1211.)

 Only the state introduced evidence, and thereby assumed and sustained the entire burden of proving the delinquency of the child and the unfitness of the parent, and one who is not injured by an act may not complain of it as unconstitutional *(Williams v. Baldridge,*48 Ida. 618, 284 Pac. 203), and this holding in no way conflicts with *Boise Payette Lbr. Co. v. Challis Ind. School Dist.,*46 Ida. 403, *226268 Pac. 26, as will appear from an examination of 12 C. J. 760-762, and 12 C. J. 780, in addition to 12 C. J. 786, cited in *Boise Fayette Lbr. Co. v. Challis Ind. School Dist., supra.*See, also, 6 R. C. L., p. 89, sec. 87, and 5 Cal. Jur., p. 622, sec. 52. The one rale is restrictive as to who may question a statute, the other is a rule of statutory construction. So we need not, and do not determine where sec. 1014A, 1927 Sess. Laws, p. 222, places the burden of proof as to the fitness of the parent, nor the effect thereof, since we will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute unless it is necessary to a decision of the case. *(Logan v. Carter,*49 Ida. 393, 288 Pac. 424.)

The evidence, while perhaps meager, is sufficient to sustain the conclusion that the boy should have been committed.

Judgment is affirmed.

No costs awarded.

Lee, Varian and McNaughton, JJ., concur.

Budge, J., did not participate.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT 2002

This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and does not constitute a
part of the Annual Report of UTStarcom, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report").

In
connection with the Report, we, Peter Blackmore and Kenneth Luk, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Dated:
March 15, 2010

By:

/s/ PETER BLACKMOREName: Peter BlackmoreTitle:Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ KENNETH LUKName: Kenneth LukTitle:Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS AT DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<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>                                          21,877
<SECURITIES>                                    67,394
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,817
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (703)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,283
<PP&E>                                          10,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,984
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 130,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,365
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           452
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   130,520
<SALES>                                         85,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,214
<CGS>                                           15,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (50)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,719
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,919
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,919
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.77

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                        INTEGRATED SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.

         Integrated Security Systems, Inc., a corporation organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"), does hereby certify that:

         FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Integrated Security Systems, Inc.

         SECOND: The Board of Directors of the Corporation, by the unanimous
written consent of its members, adopted a resolution proposing and declaring
advisable that the number of authorized shares of the Corporation's Common
Stock, par value $.01 per share, be increased from 30,000,000 shares to
35,000,000 by adopting the following amendment to the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation:

                  Article FOURTH shall be amended in its entirety as follows:

                  "FOURTH: The total number of shares of stock which the
         Corporation shall have authority to issue is 35,750,000 shares, of
         which 35,000,000 shares shall be Common Stock, par value $.01 per share
         ("Common Stock"), and 750,000 shares shall be Preferred Stock, par
         value $.01 per share ("Preferred Stock")."

         THIRD: The resolution adopted by the Board of Directors has been duly
adopted by vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding Common Stock at
a Special Meeting of Stockholders called and held in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 211 and 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware, as an amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation.

         FOURTH: The aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Integrated Security Systems, Inc. has caused this
certificate to be signed by its President and attested to by its Secretary, as
of December 17, 1999.


                                        INTEGRATED SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.

                                        By:
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Gerald K. Beckmann
                                            President
Order entered August 25, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00432
- CV
IN THE ESTATE OF FRI LEY S. DAVIDSON, DEC EASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR
- 09
- 3999
- 1



### O RDER Before the Court is appellee’s August 13, 2015 motion to dismiss the appeal or, in the alternative, submit the appeal without the reporter’s record and appellant’s August 24, 2015
response . On June 4, 2015, the court reporter filed a letter stating that she had received neither a request nor payment for the reporter’s record. On that same date, this Court notified appellant by letter to provide, within ten days, notice that appellant had requested preparation of the reporter’s record and written ve rification that appellant has paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee or written documentation that appellant has been found to be entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that if we did not receive the requested do cumentation within the time specified, the Court may order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record.
See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c). In his response to appellee’s motion, appellant asks the Court to allow him the opportunity to request and pay for the reporter’s record.We DENY appellee’s motion. On the Court’s own motion, we ORDER appellant to file,

by SEPTEMBER 4, 2015 , documentation showing that he has requested and paid or made arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee. We caution appellant th at if the Court does not receive the required documentation within the time specified, we will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. If payment for the reporter’s record is made, Jackie Galindo, Official Court Reporter for the Probate Court No. 1, shall file the reporter’s record by SEPTEMBER 24, 2015

. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic transmission to Ms. Galindo and all counsel of record. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

S OCORRO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL

DISTRICT

,

Appellant

,

v.

J AMES HAMILTON

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00 091

- C V

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2016DCV1566 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to stay all proceedings in the trial court

pending resolution of this interlocutory appeal. The motion to stay is GRANTED. Accordingly,

the trial court is o rder ed to stay all proceedings in cause number 2016DCV1566, s tyled Socorro

Independent School District v. James Hamilton , pending resolution of this appeal of further order

of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 1st day of June , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 25, 2009

Decided March 26, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 08

‐ 3372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

LYLE I. DANK,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of

Wisconsin.

No. 08

‐ CR

‐ 64

‐ C

‐ 01

Barbara B. Crabb,

Chief Judge

.

O R D E R

Lyle Dank pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C.

§§ 846, 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment. Dank filed a notice of

appeal, but his appointed lawyer has moved to withdraw because he cannot discern a

nonfrivolous basis for appeal. See Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We invited Dank

to respond to counsel’s submission, see C IR

. R. 51(b), but he has not. We limit our review to

the single issue considered in counsel’s supporting brief. See United States v. Schuh

, 289 F.3d

968, 973

‐ 74 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel represents that Dank does not want his guilty plea

vacated, and so counsel properly omits any discussion of the adequacy of the plea colloquy

or the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Knox

, 287 F.3d 667, 670

‐ 72 (7th Cir.

2002). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 08

‐ 3372 Page 2

Counsel has identified just one potential argument: whether Dank might challenge

the reasonableness of his prison sentence. Based on two prior felony convictions, one for

sexual assault and the second for possession with intent to deliver marijuana, Dank was

sentenced as a career offender. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). The district court set a base offense

level of 32, see id.

, and subtracted three levels for acceptance of responsibility, id. § 3E1.1(a),

which, combined with a criminal history category of VI, yielded a guidelines imprisonment

range of 151 to 188 months. The court sentenced him to the low end of the suggested range.

A sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumed reasonable. Rita v.

United States

, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007); United States v. Cano

‐ Rodriguez

, 552 F.3d 637, 639

(7th Cir. 2009). At sentencing, the judge considered the appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), including Dank’s contention that he should be sentenced below the guidelines

range because one of the convictions underlying his career

‐ offender status was 20 years old.

The judge noted, though, that Dank had a history of increasingly serious criminal offenses,

and an apparent inability to refrain from resorting to criminality to resolve challenges in his

life. Because the court gave meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors, any argument

challenging Dank’s sentence would be frivolous. See, e.g., United States v. Shannon

, 518 F.3d

494, 496 (7th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is

DISMISSED.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.20


              AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CHAIRMAN STOCK
             OPTION PLAN OF AMERICAN FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION (1993)
             ------------------------------------------------------


     THIS AMENDMENT, made by the Board of Directors of American Freightways
corporation (the "Company") is effective as of the date indicated below.

                               W-I-T-N-E-S-S-E-T-H

     WHEREAS, the Company sponsors the 1993 Amended and Restated Chairman Stock
Option Plan of American Freightways Corporation (the "Plan"); and

     WHEREAS, paragraph 5 of Section 1 of the Plan authorizes the Board of
Directors of the Company to amend the Plan from time to time; and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that it is in
the best interests of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries and the
Company's shareholders to amend Section 3 of the Plan to provide for the
treatment of options upon the occurrence of certain events.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

1. Effective as of the date set forth below, the second paragraph of Section 3
(Recapitalizations and Reorganizations) shall be amended by adding at the end
thereof the following sentence:

          In the event of a merger or consolidation of the Company in which the
     Company does not survive and the agreement of merger or consolidation
     provides that outstanding options shall not terminate (or shall be
     substituted), unless otherwise provided in the agreement of merger or
     consolidation, (i) this Plan shall continue and be effective for purposes
     of administering options previously granted and remaining outstanding (or
     any substituted options), (ii) the successor company (or its parent) to
     such merger or consolidation shall assume the liabilities hereunder and
     thereunder, and (iii) notwithstanding paragraph 3E of Section 2, if the
     Chairman resigns or is terminated as Chairman of the Company as a result of
     or arising from such merger or consolidation of the Company, options
     granted prior to such resignation or termination (or any substituted
     options) shall continue to vest and shall remain exercisable for such time
     and in such manner as if the Chairman had not resigned or been terminated,
     so long as the Chairman remains otherwise employed by an affiliate of the
     Company, or its successor, or serves as a member of the Board of Directors
     of an affiliate of the Company or its successor, and, thereafter, until the
     expiration of the vesting period with respect to the options, agrees to be
     available to consult on matters affecting the Company or its successor.


This amendment is executed and effective as of this 12th day of November, 2000.