alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report
of Koppers Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his
capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
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 the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                        |  |                         
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------
|/s/    WALTER W.
TURNER |  | /s/    BRIAN H.
MCCURRIE
|Walter W. Turner        |  | Brian H. McCurrie       
|                        | 
|Chief Executive Officer |  | Chief Financial Officer 
|February 22, 2007       |  | February 22, 2007
#### August Bauscher and Conrad Bauscher, Appellants, v. Gabriel Abukalil, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
Property Management
Framework Agreement


 


This agreement was entered into by the following parties on
31 December 2013 in Guangzhou:


 


Party A:   China Southern Airlines Company Limited


Domicile: 278 Ji Chang Road, Guangzhou


Legal representative: Si Xian Min


 


Party B:     Guangzhou China Southern Airlines
Property Management Company Limited


Domicile: 2/F, Southern Airline Building No 4, Bai Yun Airport,
Bai Yun District, Guangzhou


Legal representative: Guo Binghua


 


Party A and Party B unanimously agreed under the principles
of fairness and mutual benefit to enter into this supplementary agreement on the basis of the “Property Management Agreement”
(hereinafter, the “Original Agreement” below) signed on 28 December 2012, the specific terms were as follows:


 


		1.	The contents of Article 4 of the Original Agreement (“Transaction
                                         Limit”) should be changed to “Both Party A and Party B unanimously agreed
                                         that the transaction amount of the businesses under this agreement shall not exceed the
                                         maximum limit of RMB42.7 million per year.”



		2.	This supplementary agreement should be deemed as the supplement
                                         to the Original Agreement, if there are conflicts between the related terms of the Original
                                         Agreement and those of this agreement, this supplementary agreement shall prevail.



		3.	This supplementary agreement shall take effect on the day both
                                         parties have signed with seals affixed after it is considered and approved by the Board
                                         of Directors of Party A.



		4.	This agreement is
                                         prepared in quadruplicate, each of both parties retains two copies which are equally
                                         legally binding.



 


(No main text below)


 




    	1



    	 



    

 


(This page is the signature page of the “Property Management
Supplemental Agreement”)


 


Party A: China Southern Airlines Company Limited


Authorized representative:


	[signature] [seal]


 


Party B: Guangzhou China Southern Airlines Property Management
Company Limited Authorized representative:


	[signature] [seal]


 




    	2
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 428

To provide for an extension of H–1 immigration status for certain

nonimmigrant nurses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1995

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for an extension of H–1 immigration status for

certain nonimmigrant nurses.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF H–1 IMMIGRATION STATUS FOR

4 CERTAIN NONIMMIGRANT NURSES.

5 The Attorney General shall provide for the extension

6 through December 31, 1995, of nonimmigrant status

7 under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i) of the Immigration and

8 Nationality Act for an alien to perform services as a reg9 istered nurse in the case of an alien who has had such

10 status which has not expired as of the date of the enact-
2

•HR 428 IH

1 ment of this Act but would otherwise expire prior to De2 cember 31, 1995, due to the time limitations with respect

3 to such status.

Æ
#### Tusiana Kunizki, as Committee of the Estate of Alexander Kunizki, an Alleged Incompetent Person, Respondent, v. National Fire Proofing Company, Appellant.

Appeal dismissed, with ten dollars costs. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Burr and Rich, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGELA SILVERIO JULIAN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-72520 

Agency No. A208-122-883 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 19, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Angela Silverio Julian, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-72520 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th 

Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that any harm 

Silverio Julian experienced or fears in Mexico has no nexus to a protected ground. 

See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] 

desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random 

violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, Silverio 

Julian’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Silverio Julian failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

Because these determinations are dispositive, we need not reach Silverio 

Julian’s remaining contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to decide issues 

unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation omitted)).

We deny Silverio Julian’s request for judicial notice as set forth in her 
3 18-72520 

opening brief. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### In the Matter of the Application of The Elmsford Real Estate Company for the Drainage of Certain Lands in the Valley of the Saw Mill River in the Town of Greenburgh, Westchester County, New York. Harriet D. Reynolds and Others, Appellants; Thomas R. Hodge and Others, Commissioners, Respondents.

Order *883affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit 31.1



DSP GROUP, INC.



CERTIFICATION



I, Inon Beracha, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of DSP Group, 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: May 2, 2005



/S/    INON BERACHAInon BerachaChief Executive Officer
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOs
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                              1,362,000
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    1,369,000
<PP&E>                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      1,369,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               1,078,000
<BONDS>                             0
<COMMON>                            15,849,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                          (15,766,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        1,369,000
<SALES>                             6,576,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    6,576,000
<CGS>                               3,521,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       6,671,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (25,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  134,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (204,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (204,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                      (1,322,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        (1,526,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.27)
        



</TABLE>
18630.

#### Newman *et al. v.*Aldredge, Commissioner, *et al.*

Argtjed June 16, 1954

Decided July 13, 1954.

Candler, Justice.

The plaintiffs, alleging themselves to be citizens, taxpayers, and registered voters of Pulton County, instituted an equitable suit against the defendants, as the governing body of Pulton County, and by their petition as amended prayed that the defendants in their respective official capacity be restrained and permanently enjoined (1) from violating specified penal statutes of Georgia, and (2) from using convicts''to fill designated classified civil-service positions in the county, namely, Equipment Operators, Utility Workers, and Prison Camp Clerk. The amended petition was dismissed on general demurrer and. the exception is to that judgment. *Held:*

1. “Equity will take no part in the administration of the criminal law. It will neither aid criminal courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction, nor will it restrain or obstruct them.” Code § 55-102. See *Moon*v. *Clark,*192 *Ga.*47, 50 (14 S. E. 2d 481).

2. Pulton County has statutory authority to use its quota of convicts for the purpose of constructing and maintaining its system of public roads, and it may also legally use convict labor for the purpose of doing any necessary work in or about its public-works camps (Code, Title 77); and a convict when so used is not an employee of the county coming within the meaning of the words “Classified Employees” as they are defined by section 2 (7) of Fulton County’s civil-service act of 1943 (Ga. L. 1943, p. 971). Hence, the amended petition failed to state a cause of action for the relief sought, and the court did not err, as contended, in dismissing it on general demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur; Head, J., concurs in the judgment only.*

*766
      *Robert Carpenter, Ferrin Y. Mathews,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Harold Sheats, Ditrwood T. Pye, E. A. Wright,*contra.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MATTHEW STEPHEN STARR,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 94 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### Southern Commercial and Savings Bank, a Corporation, v. William Porter and Rose Porter, Defendants-Appellees.

Gen. No. 65-99.

Fifth District.

October 12, 1966.

*431Chapman, Strawn and Pratt, of Granite City, for appellant; Joseph R. Bartylak, of Collinsville, for appellees.

Opinion by

JUSTICE EBERSPAGHER.

Not to be pub-

lished in full.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      16,458,654
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,794,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                   316,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,266,234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,237,962
<PP&E>                                       9,451,238
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,592,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,089,452
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,374,498
<BONDS>                                      5,895,701
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,753,928
<PREFERRED>                                          5
<COMMON>                                         5,975
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,073,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,089,452
<SALES>                                     14,066,630
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,062,788
<CGS>                                       10,958,024
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,160,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,592,137
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,295,382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (28,577,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (28,577,642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (28,577,642)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.70)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000915324
<NAME> TELULAR CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      12,838,087
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,315,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                   900,000
<INVENTORY>                                 12,791,701
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,226,340
<PP&E>                                       4,372,276
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,046,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,938,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,669,159
<BONDS>                                      1,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       315,768
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,454,014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,938,941
<SALES>                                     27,271,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,268,505
<CGS>                                       23,906,446
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               23,906,446
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            30,955,237
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               974,379
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             773,631
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (27,590,300)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (27,590,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (26,593,178)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.96)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 585 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 585

 To amend title 37, United States Code, to prohibit the accrual of pay 
and allowances by members of the Armed Forces who are confined pending 
         dismissal or a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 1995

 Mrs. Lincoln introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on National Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 37, United States Code, to prohibit the accrual of pay 
and allowances by members of the Armed Forces who are confined pending 
         dismissal or a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON ACCRUAL OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES BY CERTAIN 
              INCARCERATED MEMBERS.

    (a) Revision of Existing Prohibition.--(1) Section 804 of title 37, 
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 804. Prohibition on accrual of pay and allowances during 
              confinement pending dismissal or dishonorable or bad-
              conduct discharge
    ``(a) Pay and Allowances Not To Accrue.--A member of the armed 
forces who is under a sentence that includes dismissal or a 
dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge shall not be entitled to any pay 
and allowances for any period during which the member is in confinement 
after the adjournment of the court-martial that adjudged such sentence.
    ``(b) Restoration of Entitlement.--If a sentence of a member of the 
armed forces described in subsection (a) is disapproved, mitigated, or 
changed by an official authorized to do so or is otherwise set aside by 
competent authority such that the sentence no longer includes dismissal 
or a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, the prohibition in 
subsection (a) shall cease to apply to the member on the basis of that 
sentence. The member shall be entitled to receive the pay and 
allowances that, in the absence of the prohibition, would have accrued 
to the member.''.
    (2) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 804 in the 
table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is 
amended to read as follows:

``804. Prohibition on accrual of pay and allowances during confinement 
                            pending dismissal or dishonorable or bad-
                            conduct discharge.''.
    (b) Prospective Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection 
(a)(1) shall not apply to pay periods beginning before the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Thomas Shiels, as Receiver of the Property of R. A. Brachvogel, Trading as Nix-E Company, Appellant, v. Jenny K. Stafford, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6511

KENYA BASIL PARKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00335-LMB-JFA)

Submitted: July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenya Basil Parker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenya Basil Parker seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Parker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED