alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.4

Certification of the Chief Financial
Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002for
the Period Ended December 31, 2008

CERTIFICATION

I, Mei Song, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amendment
no. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of LogicVision, 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 29, 2009
| | --------------------------
| |                           
| | By:                       
| |                           
| |                           
| |                           
| |                           

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2303

ANTHONY PARKER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SCHAEFFLER GROUP USA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(0:15-cv-00521-DCN)

Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Dudley Helms, 

Christopher Ray Thomas, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Parker appeals the district court’s order accepting 

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 

complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate 

judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed and advised

Parker that failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate 

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review 

of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been 

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140 (1985). Parker has waived appellate review by failing to 

file timely objections after receiving proper notice. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Narachi President and Chief Executive 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 my knowledge:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 5, 2009



/s/ Michael A. NarachiMichael A. NarachiPresident and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of CombiMatrix Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,2008 (the “Report”), I, Scott R. Burell, ChiefFinancial 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. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | By:                                          |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |                                         |
|   |  /s/ SCOTT R. BURELL                    |
|   | Scott  R. Burell                             |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer                     |
|   | *(Principal Finance and Accounting Officer)* |
|   | November 10,  2008                      |

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

 Defendant. 

CR 18-223-TUC-RCC(BPV) 

O R D E R 

CONTINUING PLEA DEADLINE 

AND TRIAL 

 

 This case is presently set for trial on September 11, 2018. The Defendant filed 

a motion to continue and, for the reasons set forth therein, additional time is required 

to adequately prepare for trial. The Government has no objection to a continuance. 

 The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh 

the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial because, for the reasons 

set forth in the motion, failure to grant the continuance is likely to result in a miscarriage 

of justice if the Defendant is required to go to trial on the present trial date. 

 IT IS ORDERED as follows: 

 1. The date by which the referred magistrate judge hears the change of plea must 

be no later than October 26, 2018 by 3:00 p.m. 

 2. All motions, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be in writing and shall 

be made sufficiently in advance of trial to comply with the time periods set forth in 

LRCiv. 7.2 and any court order and to avoid any delays in the trial. Pretrial motions may 

be heard before a magistrate judge and a Report and Recommendation will be provided to 

the district judge assigned to the case. 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-BPV Document 117 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

 3. This matter is RESET for trial on November 14, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel 

are to be present at 9:00 a.m. 

 4. Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7) is found to commence on 

September 12, 2018 and end on November 14, 2018. Such time shall be in addition to 

other excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act and shall commence as of the day 

following the day that would otherwise be the last day for commencement of trial. 

 5. That any and all subpoenas previously issued shall remain in full force and 

effect through the new trial date. 

 6. Any motion or stipulation to continue the scheduled trial date and change 

of plea deadline shall be filed with the Clerk of Court no later than 5:00 p.m., 

Monday, October 29, 2018. Alternatively, by that same deadline, if after 

consultation between government and defense counsel it is determined that a motion 

to continue the scheduled trial date and change of plea deadline will not be filed, 

government counsel shall notify the Court by an email to the chambers email 

address that the case and counsel are ready to proceed to trial on the scheduled trial 

date. The notification shall also include the estimated number of trial days needed 

to complete the trial. 

 Dated this 30th day of August, 2018. 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-BPV Document 117 Filed 08/30/18 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 116 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15110]



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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[File No. 1-10512]


Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application To Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Del Global Technologies Corp., Common Stock, $.10 
Par Value)

June 10, 1996.
    Del Global Technologies Corp. (``Company'') has filed an 
application with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934 (``Act'') and Rule 12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to 
withdraw the above specified security (``Security'') from listing and 
registration on the American Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Amex'').
    The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing the Security 
from listing and registration include the following:
    According to the Company, its Board of Directors unanimously 
approved resolutions on March 26, 1996 to withdraw the Security from 
listing on the Amex and instead, to list the Securities on the National 
Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations National Market 
System (``Nasdaq/NMS'').
    The decision of the Board followed a thorough study of the matter 
and was based upon the belief that listing the Security on the Nasdaq/
NMS will be more beneficial to the Company's stockholders than the 
present listing on the Amex because:
    1. The Nasdaq system of multiple, competing market makers will 
provide the Company with increased visibility within the financial 
community, thereby encouraging greater investor awareness of the 
Company's activities.
    2. The Nasdaq system will enable the Company to attract its own 
group of market makers and expand the capital base available for 
purchases of its Security;
    3. The Nasdaq system will, in the Company's directors' opinions, 
stimulate increased demand for the Security and result in greater 
liquidity for the Company's shareholders; and
    4. The firm making a market in the Security on Nasdaq will be more 
likely to institute and issue research reports on the Company, which 
will increase the availability of information about the Company and 
enhance the Company's visibility to investors.
    Any interested person may, on or before July 1, 1996 submit by 
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549, facts bearing upon whether the 
application has been made in accordance with the rules of the exchanges 
and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the 
protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information 
submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the 
date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a 
hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15110 Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-91,075-01

EX PARTE KYLE POMYKAL, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 18,264A IN THE 21 DISTRICT COURT ST

FROM WASHINGTON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of driving while intoxicated and sentenced to ten years’

imprisonment. He filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and

the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 

Applicant contends that he was denied his right to an appeal because counsel failed to timely

file a notice of appeal. Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Ex parte

Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Jones v. State, 98 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. Crim. App.

2003). Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate forum for
2

findings of fact. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall order trial counsel1

to respond to Applicant’s claim. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out

in Article 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether

Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court

shall appoint counsel to represent him at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If

counsel is appointed or retained, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s

name.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant

was denied his right to an appeal because trial counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. The

trial court may make any other findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate in response to

Applicant’s claim.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: April 22, 2020

Do not publish

 If a defendant decides to appeal his conviction, trial counsel rather than appellate 1

counsel has the duty to ensure that written notice of appeal is filed with the trial court. Jones, 98

S.W.3d at 703.
H. Res. 736 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 3, 2009. 

Whereas, on November 19, 1863, Abraham Lincoln dedicated 

the Soldiers’ National Cemetery on the battlefield at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, with the Gettysburg Address, 

which harkened back to the promises of the Declaration 

of Independence in the first sentence, ‘‘Four score and 

seven years ago, our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated 

to the proposition that all men are created equal’’, and 

which called upon people of the United States to dedicate 

themselves to the principles of democracy so that government ‘‘of the people, by the people, for the people shall 

not perish from the earth’’; 

Whereas Congress adopted a joint resolution on August 7, 

1946, declaring the Gettysburg Address to be ‘‘the outstanding classic of the ages’’, designating November 19 

as ‘‘Dedication Day’’ in honor of the Gettysburg Address, 

and suggesting that the Gettysburg Address ‘‘be read on 

that day in public assemblages throughout the United 

States and its possessions, on our ships at sea, and wherever the American flag flies’’; and 

Whereas 2009 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln and bicentennial tributes to his birth are ex-
2 

•HRES 736 EH 

pected throughout the United States: Now, therefore, be 

it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) honors President Lincoln’s greatest speech, the 

Gettysburg Address; and 

(2) encourages people in the United States to read 

the Gettysburg Address on ‘‘Dedication Day’’ in public 

places across the Nation. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          31,619                  21,618
<SECURITIES>                                    60,555                  64,551
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,989<F1>              25,708<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     21,733                  19,216
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               167,429                 141,566
<PP&E>                                          54,675<F2>              54,683<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,656                 208,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,230                  37,628
<BONDS>                                          2,300                   2,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           278                     275
<OTHER-SE>                                     174,527                 152,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,656                 208,652
<SALES>                                        196,236                 165,106
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               196,236                 165,106
<CGS>                                           92,970                  83,419
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   92,970                  83,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,359<F3>              16,630<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,267                   1,723
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,266                   9,347
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,720                   4,412
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,546                   4,935
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .40                     .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37                     .18
<FN>
<F1>net of allowance for doubtful accounts, consistent with balance sheet
presentation.
<F2>Net of accumulated depreciation, consistent with balance sheet presentation.
<F3>Research and development expenses
</FN>


</TABLE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Damon Chad Campbell, * From the 266th District Court

 of Erath County,

 Trial Court No. CR15110.

Vs. No. 11-19-00230-CR * July 30, 2021

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

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

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has considered Damon Chad Campbell’s motion to dismiss this 

appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
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 Acadia Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, 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 his 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.





Date:  July 3, 2007





/s/ James H. Donahue

James H. Donahue, Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Roderick Bartlett, President, Chief Financial Officer of TransAct Energy Corp., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2014 (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 78 o(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: July 26, 2014   /s/ Rod Bartlett Roderick Bartlett Chief Financial Officer    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to TransAct Energy Corp. and will be retained by TransAct Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order filed July 26, 2012. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00588-CV

____________

JEFFREY MAY, ET AL, Appellants

V.

TICOR TITLE INSURANCE, N/K/A CHICAGO TITLE, COMMONWEALTH 

LAND TITLE INSURANCE, LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE 

CORPORATION, AND ALAMO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 367th District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-50072-367

ORDER

Plaintiffs below, Jeffrey May, et al, ("May"), filed a notice of appeal from the trial 

court's judgment signed March 6, 2012. Defendants, Ticor Title Insurance, n/k/a Chicago 

Title, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance, Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation, and 

Alamo Title Insurance Company, ("Ticor"), subsequently filed a notice of cross-appeal.
No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter for the 

Court informed this court that May had not made arrangements for payment for the 

reporter’s record. On July 6, 2012, the clerk of this court notified May that we would 

consider and decide those issues that do not require a reporter=s record unless May, within 

15 days of notice, provided this court with proof of payment for the record. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 37.3(c). May filed no reply. 

Accordingly, we order May to file a brief in this appeal on or before August 27, 

2012. If May fail to comply with this order, the court will dismiss the appeal brought by 

May for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.44

                                GMF HOLDINGS INC.
                               41 FREDERICK STREET
                                 NASSAU BAHAMAS

                                December 8, 2000


Advanced Viral Research Corp.
200 Corporate Blvd. South
Yonkers, NY 10701

Gentlemen:

         Please be advised that we have been assigned the rights of the Investor
contained in the Equity Line of Credit Agreement (the "Agreement") dated
September 18, 2000 between Spinneret Financial Systems Ltd. and Advanced Viral
Research Corp. (the "Company").

         By this letter we hereby waive any rights to assign our interest in the
Agreement . Very truly yours, GMF HOLDINGS INC.

                                            By: /s/ Diego Davis
                                                ----------------------------
                                            Name: Diego Davis
                                            Title: President