alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2



DSP GROUP, INC.



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the annual report of DSP Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Moshe Zelnik, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to
the best of 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, and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



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.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: March 15, 2005



/S/    MOSHE ZELNIKMoshe ZelnikChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Enterprises (the "Company") certifies that:

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

August 3, 2006

/S/  Edwin A. Guiles
Edwin A. Guiles
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



CETTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF PARADYNE NETWORKS, INC.

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 Paradyne Networks, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sean E. Belanger, Chairman, President and 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Sean E. Belanger                                            
|Sean E. Belanger Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date: August 13, 2003
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-77132, 33-84042 and 333-96205 of IGEN International, Inc. on Form S-8
dated March 31,1994, Form S-8 dated September 15, 1994 (Amended December 31,
1996) and Form S-3 dated February 4, 2000 of our report dated May 12, 2000,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of IGEN International, Inc. for
the year ended March 31, 2000.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

McLean, Virginia
June 29, 2000
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10013 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EARL HILTON POWERS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CR-80-Y(1)

- - - - - - - - - - June 30, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Earl Hilton Powers has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and we have independently reviewed the brief and record and found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from the further responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice as to Powers' potential challenge to the Bureau of Prison's calculation of credit for prior custody pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
EXHIBIT 12.1

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(Dollars in millions)

|                                          | 1996
------ | 1997
------ | 1998
------ | 1999
------ | 2000
------ | For the three months ended March 31, 2001
------
|----------------------------------------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------
|Fixed Charges:                            |             |             |             |             |             |                                                 
|Interest                                  | $88         | $88         | $81         | $62         | $72         | $18                                             
|Interest Portion of Annual Rentals        | 5
------    | 5
------    | 4
------    | 3
------    | 4
------    | 1
------                                        
|Total Fixed Charges For Purpose of Ratio  | $93
======  | $93
======  | $85
======  | $65
======  | $76
======  | $19
======                                      
|Earnings:                                 |             |             |             |             |             |                                                 
|Pretax income from continuing operations  | $349
------ | $416
------ | $287
------ | $383
------ | $390
------ | $97
------                                      
|Add: Fixed charges (from above)           | 93          | 93          | 85          | 65          | 76          | 19                                              
|Less: Fixed charges capitalized           | 2
------    | 1
------    | 1
------    | 2
------    | 2
------    | 1
------                                        
|Fixed charges net of 
capitalized charges | 91
------   | 92
------   | 84
------   | 63
------   | 74
------   | 18
------                                       
|Total Earnings for Purpose of 
Ratio      | $440
====== | $508
====== | $371
====== | $446
====== | $464
====== | $115
======                                     
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges        | 4.73
====== | 5.46
====== | 4.36
====== | 6.86
====== | 6.11
====== | 6.05
======
Exhibit 13.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended
March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ Alok MisraName:
    Alok MisraTitle:
    Group Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Thomas Lee McDaniel v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-00891-CR

Trial court case number: 1527579

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Cheri Duncan. Counsel filed an Anders

brief and a motion to withdraw on May 3, 2019. On May 15, 2019, appellant filed a pro se 

document expressing his desire to withdraw his appeal. 

A defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Porter v. State, 540 S.W.3d 178, 

183 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, to the extent appellant 

requests dismissal of his appeal, that request is denied without prejudice to appellant’s counsel 

filing a motion to dismiss the appeal within 10 days that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42.2(a). 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____./s/ Peter Kelly____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __May 30, 2019_____
#### Homer L. Bartlett, Respondent, *v.*Otto Reich, Appellant.

*Sernices*— *implied or express agreement.*

Appeal from a j udgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Woodward, J.:

There is no dispute that the plaintiff, a civil engineer, performed certain services at the request of the defendant, on two separate dates, for which he has not been paid. This action was brought to recover the fair value of such services. The defense asserted is that the plaintiff, on doing some work prior to that for which he now claims, agreed to perform the services in *890suit for seven dollars and fifty cents — one-half the amount which was charged for the original service. The plaintiff denies this, and the question litigated was whether this was the agreement, or whether there was an implied agreement on the part of the defendant to pay the fair value of the services. This latter view was accepted by the trial court, and we are of the opinion that the evidence warranted this conclusion. The judgment appealed from should be affirmed. Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
(No. 23678.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, *vs.*Robert Webb, Plaintiff in Error.

*Opinion filed October 15, 1937*

Rehearing *denied Dec. 8, 1937.*

Harold L. Levy, and Edward M. Keating, for plaintiff in error.

*347Otto Keener, Attorney General, Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, and A. B. Dennis, (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, Richard H. Devine, and Melvin S. Rembe, of counsel,) for the People.

Per Curiam :

Plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the criminal court of Cook county in July, 1913. A jury fixed his punishment at life imprisonment and, pursuant to a judgment entered on that verdict, he has ever since been incarcerated. In 1916 he sued out a writ of error from this court for the purpose of reviewing the record and on June 7, 1916, in this court, a motion was allowed striking the bill of exceptions. His former writ of error was dismissed without prejudice after the bill of exceptions was stricken.

On the present writ of error plaintiff in error seeks a reversal of the judgment against him for four reasons: (1) That the evidence fails to show him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) that the court erred in admitting incompetent evidence; (3) that certain remarks of the State’s attorney to the jury were prejudicial and (4) that the court erred in the giving and refusing of instructions.

No complaint is made as to the sufficiency of the indictment nor as to anything shown by the common law record. The points which are sought to be raised could be argued and considered only upon reference to a bill of exceptions. Nothing is presented for us to decide, and the judgment will be affirmed. *People*v. *Stahulak,*353 Ill. 348; *People*v. Hoffman, 344 id. 533.

A motion by the People for leave to file a plea of the Statute of Limitations need not be considered.

*Judgment affirmed.*
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 31, 2021

NO. 03

- 21

- 00083

- CV

City of Austin , Appellant

v.

Maria Furtado , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, TRIANA, AND KELLY

REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY;

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by t he tr i a l court on December 15, 2020

.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible

error in the order

. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s interlocutory order and rema nd s

the case to the tri al court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion

. Each party

shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party , both in this Court and in the court below.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Mark A. Imes, certify that:

l. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Independent BancShares, 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;

Date: May 23, 2008.



/S/ Mark A. ImesMark A. Imes, President and Chief Executive Officer




1
#### FARRELL v. OLIVER.

No. 17364.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 20, 1940.

Chas. J. Mundy, of New Orleans, for appellant.

John O’Connor, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment maintaining an exception of no cause of action. The plaintiff alleges that through her son, Frank Farrell, she bought, from the defendant, a secondhand Pontiac truck, for the price of $40; that she fully paid the purchase price and that, nevertheless, without authority of law, the defendant took possession of her truck, which had been stored in a garage, and converted it to his own use. She sues for the value of the truck, the deprivation of its use and other damages due to the illegal seizure of the truck, amounting in all to the sum of $254.

During the course of the trial and while the pláintiff was on the stand, she was asked whether the truck belonged to her or to her son, whereupon she replied: “I was sick in bed and I had some money and my son said, T saw a good truck’ and I put this money I had on the truck, I said, ‘I’ll buy it for you’ and I didn’t know anything about the truck being bought for me until I saw the receipts and I seen my name on the receipts”. She was further asked whether she had anything to do with the buying of the truck and when she answered in the negative, counsel arose and an-' nounced that “I now file an exception of no right or cause of action”, which was sustained by the trial court upon the ground that “the ownership of this truck is really intended to be in the name of the son and not in the name of the plaintiff herein”. It seems to us that this ruling was incorrect and that the proper appreciation of the evidence indicates that the plaintiff bought the truck through her son, which would make her the owner of the truck as effectively as though she had bought it herself.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is annulled, avoided and reversed, and it is now ordered that the exception of no cause of action be overruled and that this cause be remanded to the First City Court of New Orleans for further proceedings according to law and not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32.1

                Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Paradise, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melvin S.
Gordon, as Chief Executive Officer of Paradise, Inc., certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of
          operations of Paradise, Inc.



       /s/ Melvin S. Gordon            Date:  May 14, 2007
       -----------------------------
       Melvin S. Gordon
       Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000075448
<NAME> NSTOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             244<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,826
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (513)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,714
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,206
<PP&E>                                           9,926<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,586)<F3>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,214
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0<F4>
<COMMON>                                         1,106
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,046
<SALES>                                          1,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,511
<CGS>                                            1,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   395<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,471)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,471)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,471)<F6>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
<FN>
<F1>CASH INCLUDES RESTRICTED CASH OF $21.
<F2>PP&E INCLUDES GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS OF $6,892.
<F3>ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION INCLUDES AMORTIZATION OF GOODWILL AND OTHER
INTANGIBLE ASSETS OF $1,061.
<F4>PREFERRED STOCK ISSUED AND OUTSTANDING INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING: SERIES A
CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK - 1,667 SHARES; SERIES C CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED
STOCK - 3,000 SHARES, AND; SERIES D CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK - 2,700
SHARES.
<F5>OTHER EXPENSES REPRESENT DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION.
<F6>NET LOSS DOES NOT INCLUDE DIVIDENDS OF $219 ON PREFERRED STOCK.  NET LOSS
APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK IS $2,690.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION**

I,Eugene K. Rowehl, the Principal Financial Officer of Kimball Hill, Inc.(the “Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify thatbased on my knowledge the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K forthe fiscal year ended September 30, 2006, filed with the Securities andExchange Commission: (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) theinformation contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ EUGENE K. ROWEHL                                                  |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Eugene K. Rowehl,*Senior Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

Date: December 21, 2006

1

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 26, 2016 

# Order

February 26, 2016

152743 ( 43 )

CLAY W. LONG,

Plaintiff/Counter Defendant

Appellant,

v

HARBOR POINT ASSOCIATION,

Defendant/Counter Plaintiff/Third

Party Plaintiff

- Appellee,

and

LYNSEY LONG,

Third Party Defendant. SC: 152743

COA: 322327

Emmet CC: 2013

- 103876

- CH

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Meisner Law Group, P.C., to

withdraw as counsel for plaintiff/counter defendant

- appellant is GRANTED. The case

will proceed to a decision on the existing application for leave to appeal and with

plaintiff/counter defendant

- appellant being listed as acting in propria persona unless and

until another attorney files an appearance on his behalf.
#### John Turl's Sons, Incorporated, Respondent, v. Williams Engineering and Contracting Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
OFFICE **OF THE**  **ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **OF TEXAS**  **AUSTIN**

mnorabl e Enlcs T
. Parker **county Attorney**  **aray County**  Pampa, Texas Dear We Parker: Opinion Ho. O-7290 ROl The pay8 jury fee

**Tour letter**  stats8 **that a**  **Justice Court,**  **and that**  **the** abil1t.vto p&y Costs,~ **and resulted**  In a judment for al;t**then appeaY**  ed to **the**

fee may be obtained. Article 2432 of the Revised Btatute8, which ia **now** Rule BSQ of CIVII Woeedure, provides that **the suooe8aful**  **party ia**  **the** Justice Court shall reaorer his oosts 

### l ~!r .a lnst

the Yoser except -bea otherwise provided by law-

~u]e 121 of the Civil Procedure, **rhlch** was Artlale 2086, provides that in'the County and District Court **the eU~ceaati~**  **Wrt7**tory 

### tn1t teorm AtmnBu8RuKRALO?nuA8

lo.* w . Ba r a s 

### A88Z8tASt