alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.1

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 of Sequans Communications S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dr. Georges Karam, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 29, 2016



|    |  |                                                       
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Dr. Georges Karam                                 
|    |  | Name: Dr. Georges Karam Title: Chief
Executive Officer
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2318    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 14:43:02    Page 1 of3

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2318    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 14:43:02    Page 2 of3

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2318    Filed: 05/31/19    Entered: 05/31/19 14:43:02    Page 3 of3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 1 of

 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 2 of

 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 3 of

 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 4 of

 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 5 of

 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 6 of

 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 7 of

 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 8 of

 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 9 of

 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 10

 of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 11

 of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 12

 of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 13

 of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 14

 of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 15

 of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 16

 of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 17

 of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 18

 of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 19

 of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 20

 of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 21

 of 22
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2548 Filed: 06/14/19 Entered: 06/14/19 15:29:41 Page 22

 of 22
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SUMMIT BANCSHARES, INC.

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I Philip E. Norwood, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Summit Bancshares, Inc. (the Corporation) hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

|(i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,   2006 of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)   or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                    
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|(ii) | the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for   the quarter ended September 30, 2006 of the Corporation fairly presents, in   all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of   the Corporation as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

|Dated:  November 8, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Philip E. Norwood                          
|------------------------ | ------ | -----------------------------------------------
|                         |        |                                                
|                         | Name:  | Philip E. Norwood                              
|                         | Title: | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLMT922200-10-L13100000-FI0000-P; MTM 97526 and MTM 97527]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), Panther Energy Company, LLC timely filed a petition for reinstatement of competitive oil and gas leases MTM 97526 and MTM 97527, Richland County, Montana. The lessee paid the required rental accruing from the date of termination.

                        No leases were issued that affect these lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 16                        2/3                         percent. The lessee paid the $500 administration fee for the reinstatement of each lease and the $163 cost for publishing this Notice.                    

                        The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188).                         *We are proposing to reinstate the lease, effective the date of termination subject to:*
      - The original terms and conditions of the lease;
      - The increased rental of $10 per acre;
      - The increased royalty of 162/3                         percent; and                    
      - The $163 cost of publishing this Notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Teri Bakken, Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section, Bureau of Land Management Montana State Office, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, 406-896-5091.

Teri Bakken,

Chief, Fluids Adjudication Section.

[FR Doc. 2010-12845 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

 Reorganized Debtors. 

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Victor Wong, do declare and state as follows: 

1. I am employed by Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC (“Kroll”)1, the claims and 

noticing agent for the Reorganized Debtors in the above-referenced chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

2. On April 10, 2023, at my direction and under my supervision, employees of Kroll 

caused the following documents to be served via First Class Mail on the Notice Parties Service List 

attached hereto as Exhibit A: 

 Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration by Spiro Jannings [Docket No. 13646] 

 Notice of Appeal and Election [Docket No. 13662] 

3. I have reviewed the Notices of Electronic Filing (NEF) for the above-listed documents, 

and I understand that parties listed in each NEF as having received notice through electronic mail were 

electronically served with that document through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system. 

4. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that the 

1

 Effective March 29, 2022, Prime Clerk LLC changed its name to Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13676 Filed: 04/20/23 Entered: 04/20/23 08:11:44 Page 1

of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

foregoing is true and correct and that if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify 

thereto. 

Executed this 14th day of April 2023, at New York, NY. 

 

/s/ Victor Wong

 Victor Wong 

 2 SRF 68770 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13676 Filed: 04/20/23 Entered: 04/20/23 08:11:44 Page 2

of 4
Exhibit A 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13676 Filed: 04/20/23 Entered: 04/20/23 08:11:44 Page 3

of 4
Exhibit A

Notice Parties Service List

Served via First Class Mail

Name Address1 Address2 Address3 City State PostalCode

Jannings, Spiro Address on file

Keller and Benvenutti, LLP Attn: Jane Kim, Thomas B. Rupp 650 California St., #1900 San Francisco CA 94108

Office of the U.S. Trustee / SF Phillip J. Burton Federal Building 450 Golden Gate Ave. 5th Fl., #05-0153 San Francisco CA 94102

In re: PG&E Corporation, et al.

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) Page 1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13676 Filed: 04/20/23 Entered: 04/20/23 08:11:44 Page 4

of 4
Exhibit 12
 SS&C Technologies, Inc.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)
($ in thousands)
 Year Ended
    
    Year Ended
    
    Year Ended
    
    Year Ended
    
    Year EndedDecember 31,
    
    December 31,
    
    December 31,
    
    December 31,
    
    December 31,(in thousands, except ratios)
    
    2010
    
    2009
    
    2008
    
    2007
    
    2006Income (loss) before income taxes
    
    $
    44,447
    
    
    $
    28,822
    
    
    $
    25,947
    
    
    $
    6,117
    
    
    $
    (2,714
    )Distributed income and (gains)/losses of equity investee
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    2,137
    
    
    
    295
    
    
    $
    (393
    )Interest expense and amortization of deferred financing costs
    
    
    30,582
    
    
    
    36,891
    
    
    
    41,539
    
    
    
    45,463
    
    
    
    47,427Portion of rentals deemed to be a reasonable approximation of the interest factor
    
    
    3,493
    
    
    
    2,821
    
    
    
    2,711
    
    
    
    2,629
    
    
    
    2,642Income available for fixed charges
    
    $
    78,522
    
    
    $
    68,534
    
    
    $
    72,334
    
    
    $
    54,504
    
    
    $
    46,962Fixed Charges:Interest expense and amortization of deferred financing costs
    
    $
    30,582
    
    
    $
    36,891
    
    
    $
    41,539
    
    
    $
    45,463
    
    
    $
    47,427Portion of rentals deemed to be a reasonable approximation
of the interest factor
    
    
    3,493
    
    
    
    2,821
    
    
    
    2,711
    
    
    
    2,629
    
    
    
    2,642Total fixed charges
    
    $
    34,075
    
    
    $
    39,712
    
    
    $
    44,250
    
    
    $
    48,092
    
    
    $
    50,069Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.3
    
    
    
    1.7
    
    
    
    1.6
    
    
    
    1.1
    
    
    
    *
 
 *
    
    Earnings for the year ended December 31, 2006 were inadequate to cover fixed charges by $3.1 million.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LUIS CASTRUITA

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 03 0

- C R

Appeal from the

168 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2014 0D0 2055 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s fourth motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until November 24 , 2016

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO F ILE THE APPELLANT ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Ruben P. Morales

, the Appellant ’ s attorney,

prepare the Appellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before November 24

,

2016

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26 th day of October , 20 1 6

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Hughes , JJ.
EX-10.1






TRANSENTERIX, INC.




AMENDMENT TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN,

AS AMENDED

EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 8, 2016




This Amendment No. 1, dated and effective June 8, 2016 (the “Amendment”) is an amendment to
the Amended and Restated Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), of TransEnterix,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). All capitalized terms used in this Amendment without
definition have the meanings set forth in the Plan.



WHEREAS, Section 10(e) authorizes the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) to make
amendments to the Plan, subject to stockholder approval as required by law or agreement.



WHEREAS, on April 27, 2016, the Board approved amendments to the Plan to increase the number
of shares available for awards under the Plan b 7,000,000 from 11,940,000 to 18,940,000, and to
provide for maximum award limits for annual equity awards to non-employee directors, and submitted
the Amendment to the Company’s stockholders for approval at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders held
on June 8, 2016.



WHEREAS, on June 8, 2016, the stockholders approved the foregoing amendments to the Plan.



NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound, and in accordance with the approvals set forth
in the WHEREAS clauses, which are incorporated by reference into this Amendment, the Company amends
the Plan as follows:



1. Section 4(a) of the Plan is deleted in its entirety and is replaced by the following:



“4. Shares Subject to Plan.



(a) Limitation on Overall Number of Shares Available for Delivery Under
Plan. Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 10(c) hereof, the total
number of Shares reserved and available for delivery under the Plan shall be
18,940,000. Any Shares that are subject to Awards shall be counted against
this limit as one (1) Share for every one (1) Share granted. Any Shares
delivered under the Plan may consist, in whole or in part, of authorized and
unissued shares or treasury shares.”



2. Section 4 of the Plan is amended to add a new subsection 4(d) as follows:



“(d) Limitation on Number of Shares Subject to Awards to
Non-Employee Directors. Subject to Section 10(c) of the Plan, the
aggregate number of Shares subject to Awards granted under the Plan
during any calendar year to any non-employee Director shall not
exceed 100,000, except that in connection with his or her initial
appointment to the Board, such non-employee Director may be granted
an Award covering up to an additional 100,000 Shares.”



3. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Plan continues in full force and effect.



4. In the event of a conflict between this Amendment and the Plan, this Amendment shall
govern.



Adopted by the Board of Directors: April 27, 2016



Adopted by the stockholders: June 8, 2016
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****(18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund I (the“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officerof the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that, to the best of his 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 Registrant.

|                                                                                                              |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS  **Douglas P. Williams****Chief Financial Officer****November 13, 2002**24 |
#### FANNIE C. HALL, ETHEL SLOAN TURNER, ROBBIE L. ZIBELIN, LINA W. POTTER (BETTIE WILLIAMS WARD, Executrix of GEORGE R. WARD, Deceased), v. J. F. LANDEN and Wife, EMILY S. LANDEN (G. F. LANDEN, Administrator and Individually, and MYRTLE LANDEN; EMILY C. HUNT and Husband, GLENN HUNT).

(Filed 12 April, 1944.)

Appeal and Error § 37b—

The exercise of a discretionary power by the trial court, in the absence of allegation or suggestion of abuse, is not reviewable on appeal.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Stevens, J.,*at December Term, 1943, of DupliN.

Appeal dismissed.

*Oscar B. Turner for plaintiffs.*

*Gavin ■<& Gavin and R. D. Johnson for defendants.*

Pee Otjeiam.

Plaintiffs declared on certain notes, one of them secured by mortgage on land, executed by J. F. Landen and bis wife, Emily S. Landen. Upon tbe death of J. F..Landen pending tbe action bis administrator, G. F. Landen, and bis heirs, were made parties defendant. Liability on tbe notes was denied. When tbe cause came on for trial, at tbe close of plaintiffs’ evidence, nonsuit was ordered as to all defendants *234except G. F. Landen, administrator. In response to issues submitted tbe jury found, (1) that plaintiffs were owners and holders of two of the notes, (2) that no credits had been made thereon by J. E. Landen, .and-(3) that plaintiffs were not entitled to recover of G. E. Landen, administrator, on said notes. Plaintiffs moved to set aside the verdict on the third issue and for judgment on the other issues, or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. After hearing argument, the court, in its discretion, set aside the verdict and the order of nonsuit, and ordered a new trial on the entire case.

Under the circumstances, we think the exercise by the judge below of his discretion to set aside the verdict and the order previously entered during the trial may not be successfully challenged. The exercise of a discretionary power in the absence of allegation or suggestion of abuse is not reviewable on appeal. *Bird v. Bradburn,*131 N. C., 488, 42 S. E., 936; *Brantley v. Collie,*205 N. C., 229, 171 S. E., 88; *Jones v. Ins. Co.,*210 N. C., 559, 187 S. E., 769.

Appeal dismissed.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIE LAMAR HARTWELL, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondents - Appellees. No. 10-17728 D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01371-KJD-LRL
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 14, 2012 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, FISHER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. The Nevada state court’s determination that Willie Lamar Hartwell was not denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent because 

# FILED
MAR 14 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Hartwell cannot show he suffered prejudice due to any deficiency of counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see Roe v. Flores-Ortega , 528 U.S. 470, 484 (2000). Even assuming that Hartwell’s indications trigge red his counsel’s duty to consult, the Nevada state court could reasonably concl ude that Hartwell was not deprived of an appeal, given that the Nevada Supreme Court directed the state trial court to consider all of Hartwell’s “direct appeal” claims even if it determined that counsel was not ineffective; Hartwell argued his cl aims to the state trial court with the assistance of counsel; the state trial court rejected those claims on the merits; and the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the only claim Hartwell elected to raise on appeal. See id. at 483. We also reject Hartwell’s argument that the Nevada sentencing court violated his federal due process right s by enhancing his sentence under Nevada’s habitual criminal statute, and therefor e need not reach the question whether this claim was exhausted in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). The Nevada Supreme Court could reasonably determine, pursuant to state law, that Hartwell effectively stipulated to at least five prior felony convictions. See Hodges v. State , 78 P.3d 67, 70 (Nev. 2003). Moreover, even if the Nevada Supreme Court erred, an error of state law such as this one, wh ich does not rise to the level of a federal due process violation, cannot serve as the basis for federal habeas relief. See3 Swarthout v. Cooke , 131 S. Ct. 859, 861 (2011); Estelle v. McGuire , 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991). AFFIRMED.