alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED


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





The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2009 of UTEC, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.




Very truly yours,





/s/ Fortunato VillamagnaFortunato VillamagnaChief Executive OfficerDecember 14, 2009/s/ Howard BouchHoward BouchChief Financial OfficerDecember 14, 2009
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Anthony A. DiTonno, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of NeurogesX, 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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information included in this report fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting that are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: June 13, 2007



By:

/s/ Anthony A. DiTonnoAnthony A. DiTonnoPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
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 MEMSIC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yang Zhao, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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.







/s/ YANG ZHAOYang ZhaoChief Executive OfficerMay 13, 2011




This Certification shall not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by reference into any of the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DENEIL TARDIFF, 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 09-10511 

-vsHon: AVERN COHN

ENCOMPASS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

________________________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

This is a diversity case removed to this Court from Genesee County Circuit Court.

Plaintiff has moved for remand on the grounds diversity is lacking, 28 USC §1332(c)(1),

because defendant insurer should be deemed a citizen of the state (Michigan) in which the

insured (plaintiff) is a citizen, and because defendant has not established by a

preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00. The

motion is DENIED.

28 USC §1332(c)(1) is not applicable. See Davis v. State Farm Automobile

Insurance Company, 382 F.Supp.2d 957 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (Cohn, J).

The petition to remand does not comply with L.R. 81.1, and particularly subsection

(d):

If a plaintiff moves to remand, contending that the amount in

controversy does not exceed the required jurisdictional

amount, the plaintiff must include with the motion a signed

statement of damages claimed, itemizing all damages by

category and amount, or, for those categories for which the

plaintiff is unable to specify a precise amount, an estimate of

2:09-cv-10511-AC-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 05/22/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 104
2

the maximum amount and a detailed description of the factual

basis for the estimate.

Moreover, the petition for removal contains allegations of fact sufficient to justify the

$75,000.00 requirement.

SO ORDERED.

 s/ Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 22, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record

on this date, May 22, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/ Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

S:\LORI\CASES\Tardiff v. Encompass\Remand Order.wpd

2:09-cv-10511-AC-RSW Doc # 11 Filed 05/22/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 105
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

DAVID EISENBERG

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.

3550 N. Central Avenue, Ste. 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Arizona State Bar No. 017218

Telephone: 602.237.5076

Email: david@deisenbergplc.com

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Andrew Padilla, 

Defendant.

CR-18-00422-06-PHX-DJH

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

APPEAR BY TELEPHONE 

(Hearing Set for September 5, 2023 at

10:30 am)

In accordance with the Court’s Order of September 3, 2023 (Dkt. 1747), the Defendant

Andrew Padilla, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits the Defendant’s

request that he be allowed to appear by telephone for the status conference set for September

5, 2023, starting at 10:30 am. 

Wherefore, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter an order allowing him

to appear telephonically or by video teleconference.

Respectfully submitted this 3 day of September, 2023. rd

s/ David Eisenberg

 

DAVID EISENBERG

Counsel for Defendant Andrew Padilla

Certificate of Service

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1749 Filed 09/03/23 Page 1 of 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 2

I hereby certify that on September 3, 2023, I electronically transmitted the attached document

to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of

Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance as

counsel of record. 

 s/ David Eisenberg 

 David Eisenberg

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1749 Filed 09/03/23 Page 2 of 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Melbourne Dazen, Jr.,

Defendant.

No. CR-17-08288-001-PCT-SPL

ORDER

The defendant appeared in court with counsel. The defendant's probable cause 

hearing was waived, and the detention hearing was submitted on the record including a 

proffer by defense counsel. The Court finds probable cause to believe the defendant 

violated the terms of his supervised release as alleged in the petition. The Court further 

finds, pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), that defendant has failed to show by clear and 

convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk or a danger.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant shall be bound over for further 

proceedings on the petition to revoke his supervised release.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is detained as a flight risk and a 

danger, pending further revocation proceedings. 

Dated this 5th day of June, 2019.

Honorable John Z. Boyle

United States Magistrate Judge
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our reports dated September 11, 2007, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and scheduleand management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Pervasive Software Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Pervasive Software Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-140833, File No. 333-116957, File No. 333-104770, File No. 333-70604, File No. 333-57500, File No. 333-92707,File No. 333-67659 and File No. 333-37347). 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas

September 11, 2007
Order entered July 1, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00028-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

MESQUITE CREEK DEVELOPMENT, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, AND 

RACETRAC PETROLEUM, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-05842-B

ORDER

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated April 10, 2019, we notified 

the Dallas County Clerk that the clerk’s record was past due and directed the Dallas County 

Clerk to file the clerk’s record within thirty days. To date, the clerk’s record has not been filed. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County Clerk to file, within TEN DAYS of the date 

of this order, either (1) the clerk’s record or (2) written verification that appellant has not paid for 

or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We notify appellant that if we receive 

verification the clerk’s record has not been paid for or that arrangements to pay for the clerk’s 

record have not been made, we will, without further notice, dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 37.3(b).
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to: 

John Warren

Dallas County Clerk

All parties

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent v. Bryon FOSTER, Appellant.

No. WD 49636.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 28, 1995.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Bryon Foster appeals his conviction of first degree burglary, for which he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. His appeal includes issues related to sufficiency of the evidence, admission of evidence, and instructional error.

Judgment is affirmed. Rule 80.25(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20023-04

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

ASHLEY REBECCA ALLEN,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

On September 15, 2009, the case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of

the parties, Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. The Defendant, along with counsel, appeared

before me on September 15, 2009. In open court I examined the Defendant under oath,

confirmed the Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned the Defendant regarding

each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE. Based upon the Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND 1) that

the Defendant is competent to tender a plea, 2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly,

intelligently made, and 3) that the offense(s) to which he pled are supported by an independent

basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense(s). Therefore, I have

ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.

Case 1:09-cr-20023-TLL-PTM ECF No. 109, PageID.374 Filed 09/16/09 Page 1 of 2
II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the FEDERAL RULES OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, the Defendant be adjudged guilty and have sentence imposed.

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Frontier Ins.

Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984

(6th Cir. 2005). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise

others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and

Recommendation. McClanahan v. Comm’r of Social Security, 474 F.3d 830, 837 (6th Cir.

2006); Frontier Ins. Co., 454 F.3d at 596-97. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of

any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: September 16, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on Janet Parker and Mary Hickey, and served on District Judge

Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: September 16, 2009 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder

Case 1:09-cr-20023-TLL-PTM ECF No. 109, PageID.375 Filed 09/16/09 Page 2 of 2
**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

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 of Manhattan Bancorp (the “Company”).

 

I, Jeffrey M. Watson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.        The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

2.        The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such reports.

 

 

Dated:  August 12, 2009

 

 
|   | /s/  Jeffrey M. Watson                 |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Jeffrey  M. Watson                     |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DASSAULT SYSTÈMES, S.A. § 

 A CORPORATION OF FRANCE § 

 § 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, § Case No. 2:09-CV-10534-LPZ-VMM 

 § 

v. § 

 § Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

KEITH CHILDRESS § 

d/b/a PRACTICAL CATIA § 

 A MICHIGAN RESIDENT § 

 § 

 Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. § 

____________________________________§ 

STIPULATED ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 

PENDING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Dassault Systèmes, S.A. and Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff 

Keith Childress, request a ninety (90) day stay of all proceedings in this matter, including 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant’s August 16, 2012 deadline to file a Response to 

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff’s Petition for Grand Jury Investigation, and Defendant/CounterPlaintiff’s August 17th deadline to file a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order 

denying Defendant’s Motions to Quash [DE:113] & Order denying Motion for Stay [DE: 114]. 

The purpose for the stay is to allow the parties to engage in further settlement discussions to 

attempt to resolve the instant case. 

At the conclusion of the ninety days, the parties will report back to the Court on the 

progress of their settlement efforts and, should such efforts have failed, the parties will each have 

2:09-cv-10534-LPZ-MJH Doc # 115 Filed 08/27/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1520
2

10 days in which to file the aforementioned Response to Petition and Motion for 

Reconsideration. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

The present action is stayed for a period of ninety (90) days. 

Dated: August 247, 2012 s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff

 Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

 United States District Judge 

2:09-cv-10534-LPZ-MJH Doc # 115 Filed 08/27/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1521
3

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: August 17, 2012 By: _/s/Douglas P. LaLone___________________ 

 GLENN E. FORBIS (P52119) 

 DOUGLAS P. LALONE (P45741) 

 RADER, FISHMAN & GRAUER, PLLC 

 39533 Woodward Ave., Suite 140 

 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 

 Phone: (248) 594-0600 

 Fax: (248) 594-0610 

 gef@raderfishman.com 

 dpl@raderfishman.com 

 Attorneys for the Plaintiff 

 By: 

___________________________ 

 On behalf of Defendant 

2:09-cv-10534-LPZ-MJH Doc # 115 Filed 08/27/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1522
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.14
 DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORP.
 2000 AMENDED AND RESTATED NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN
 
 
 
 1. Purposes.
 (a) Eligible Option Recipients
 (b) Available Options
 (c) General Purpose
 2. Definitions.
 (a) Affiliate
 (b) Annual
Grant
 (c) Annual
Meeting
 (d) Board
 1.




---



##### 



(e) Code
 (f) Common Stock
 (g) Company Dot Hill Systems Corp.,
 (h) Consultant
 (i) Continuous Service
 (j) Director
 (k) Disability
 (l) Employee
 (m) Exchange Act
 (n) Fair Market Value
 (i)
 (ii)
 2.




---



##### 



(o) Initial Grant
 (p) Non-Employee Director
 (q) Nonstatutory Stock Option
 (r) Option
 (s) Option Agreement
 (t) Optionholder
 (u) Plan Dot Hill Systems Corp.
 (v) Rule 16b-3
 (w) Securities Act
 3. Administration.
 (a) Administration by Board
 (b) Powers of Board
 (i)
 (ii)
 (iii)
 (iv)
 3.




---



##### 



(c) Effect of Boards Decision.
 4. Shares Subject to the Plan.
 (a) Share Reserve
 (b) Reversion of Shares to the Share Reserve
 (c) Source of Shares
 5. Eligibility.
  6. Non-Discretionary Grants.
 (a) Initial Grants.
 (b) Annual Grants.
 7. Option Provisions.
  4.




---



##### 



(a) Term
 (b) Exercise Price
 (c) Consideration
 (i)
 (ii) The Wall Street Journal
 (iii) The Wall Street Journal
 (iv)
 (1)
 (2)
 5.




---



##### 



(3)
 (4)
 (d) Transferability
 (e) Vesting Schedule
 (i) th
 (ii)
 (f) Early Exercise.
 6.




---



##### 



(g) Termination of Continuous Service
 (h) Extension of Termination Date
 (i) Disability of Optionholder
 (j) Death of Optionholder
 7.




---



##### 



8. Covenants of the Company.
 (a) Availability of Shares
 (b) Securities Law Compliance provided,
however,
 9. Use of Proceeds from Stock.
  10. Miscellaneous.
 (a) Stockholder Rights
 (b) No Service Rights
 (c) Investment Assurances
 8.




---



##### 



(d) Withholding Obligations provided, however,
 11. Adjustments upon Changes in Stock.
 (a) Capitalization Adjustments
 (b) Dissolution or Liquidation
 (c) Asset Sale, Merger, Consolidation or Reverse Merger
 9.




---



##### 



(d) Parachute Payments.
   10.




---



##### 



12. Amendment of the Plan and Options.
 (a) Amendment of Plan
 (b) Stockholder Approval
 (c) No Impairment of Rights
 (d) Amendment of Options provided, however,
 13. Termination or Suspension of the Plan.
 (a) Plan Term
 (b) No Impairment of Rights
 14. Effective Date of Plan.
  15. Choice of Law.
  11.
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 48 Att. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
#### Calvin FURRY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ESTATE OF John NOLIE, Doris Herberholz, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 66060.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Feb. 21, 1995.

Albert G. Tindall, Mark L. Akers, Tindall & Akers, P.C., Potosí, for appellant.

David L. Baylard, Daniel J. Briegel, Brie-gel, Baylard, P.C., Mark S. Vincent, Union, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*MEMORANDUM DECISION*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice his petition for failure to prosecute. The case had been pending for seven years and had appeared previously on one dismissal docket and one pre-dismissal “status” docket. After the last requested continuance by plaintiff he had no request for trial setting for eight months and the case was again set on the dismissal docket and this time dismissed. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. *Belleville v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri,*825 S.W.2d 623 (Mo.banc 1992) [2-4], No error of law appears and the judgment of the court is supported by substantial evidence. An opinion would have no prece-dential value.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).