alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with Amendment No. 2 on Form 20-F/A to the annual report of Spreadtrum Communications, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shannon Gao, Chief Financial 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 complied 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: August 27, 2010



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ Shannon Gao                
|Shannon Gao                    
|Chief Financial Officer        
|Spreadtrum Communications, Inc.
#### MARTIN v. BENSON

No. 119A97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 330

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals dismissed 8 May 1997. Motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiffs appeal allowed 8 May 1997.
#### Board of Directors of St. Francis Levee District *v.*Hagan.

Opinion delivered October 7, 1929.

*35
      *Maim $*McCulloch, for appellant.

*W. D. Gravette,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). Appellant insists that there was such an unreasonable delay in the presentation of the check by appellee for payment to the bank upon which it was drawn, and wherein it had funds on deposit sufficient to cover it, as to cause the loss to fall on appellee and discharge it from liability thereon.

It is true a check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue, or the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon (§ 7952, C. & M. Digest), but what is a reasonable time will depend upon *36the circumstances of the particular case, the rule generally requiring that it be presented within banking hours not later than the day following its receipt by the payee, where he resides or does business in the same town where the bank on which the check is drawn is located. *Burns*v. *Yocum,*81 Ark. 127, 98 S. W. 956; *Pelt*v. *Marler,*95 Ark. 111, 128 S. W. 554; *Federal Land Bank of St. Louis*v. *Goodman,*173 Ark. 493, 292 S. W. 659; *Geo. H. McFadden Bros. Agency v. Keesee,*179 Ark. 510, 16 S. W. (2d) 1001.

Appellee had directed, however, that the money for the purchase price of the lands sold and conveyed by him to the district be paid to B. F. Gay, the mortgagee, and had no reason to think that it had not been done until he received notice from Gay’s letter, after the bank had failed, to come in and indorse the check, which had been made payable to his order as well as Gay’s. Nothing could be done, after receipt of the notice of the check’s being made payable jointly to his order, about its indorsement or collection, before the bank, which failed before the letter was written, had closed its doors. Gay was not his agent to receive the check, and appellee was in no wise negligent in the failure of presentation of it for payment, having had no knowledge that the check had not been made payable to Gay, as was directed should be done.

The court correctly directed a verdict in appellee’s favor, and the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Allen Ray JOHNSON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7214.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 8, 2004.

Decided: Jan. 4, 2005.

*895Allen Ray Johnson, Appellant pro se.

Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before: WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Allen Ray Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) for lack of jurisdiction and denying his motion to recuse the district court judge.* With regard to the denial of § 2241 relief, we find that the law-of-the-case doctrine precluded Johnson from relitigating issues adjudicated in a prior appeal, *United States v. Johnson,*No. 03-7128 (4th Cir. Nov. 4, 2003) (unpublished). *See United States v. Aramony,*166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir.1999) (discussing doctrine and exceptions thereto); *see also S. Atl. Ltd. P’ship of Tenn. v. Riese,*356 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir.2004) (discussing mandate rule). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court’s order on that basis.

Turning to the district court’s denial of Johnson’s motion to recuse, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. *See Liteky v. United States,*510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994); *United States v. DeTemple,*162 F.3d 279, 286 (4th Cir.1998). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the order for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Johnson,*No. CR-01-167, 2001 WL 1414393 (E.D.N.C. filed June 30, 2004 *&*entered July 2, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 In his informal brief filed in this court, Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying his objections as moot. *See Smith v. Barry,*502 U.S. 244, 245, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992) (holding that document filed within appeal period and containing information required by Fed. R.App. P. 3(c) is functional equivalent of notice of appeal). However, Johnson fails to challenge the ground on which the district court relied to deny the objections and has therefore waived appellate review. 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“This Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”).
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.21

                           [Color Kinetics Letterhead]

                                                  December 14, 2001



Graham & Liz Allison
69 Pinehurst Road
Belmont, MA 02478

Dear Graham & Liz,

      In connection with your purchase of $1,000,000.00 in Series E Preferred
shares of Color Kinetics Incorporated (the "Company"), the Company agrees to use
its best efforts after the closing of the Series E Financing to secure the
election of one person nominated by you and mutually agreed upon by the Company
to the Company's Board of Directors.

We look forward to continuing our successful relationship with you.

Sincerely,

/s/ George G. Mueller

George G. Mueller
Chairman & CEO

Color Kinetics Incorporated
10 Milk Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02108
george@colorkinetics.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03758

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, November 17, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Motion to withdraw as

attorney [42] is granted. Attorney Laurence M. Landsman terminated. Mailed notice.

(ecw, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 44 Filed: 11/17/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:316
Order entered January 23, 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 14

- 00065

- CV

JERRY CHAMBERS, ET AL., Appellant s

V.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE C OMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 87353

- 422



### O RDER

We GRANT appellants’ January 21, 2014 motion for an extension of time to file a

docketing statement. The docketing statement was filed with this Court on January 21, 2014.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
1

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2514

___________

Herbert Phillip Malone, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the 

Brent Scott, Infirmary Manager, * Eastern District of Arkansas. 

Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department *

of Correction; Mary Wyatt, Infirmary * [UNPUBLISHED]

Records Supervisor, Cummins Unit, *

Arkansas Department of Correction, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: May 6, 1999

 Filed: May 11, 1999

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BEAM, Circuit

Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Herbert P. Malone appeals the judgment of the district court1

 dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action following a jury verdict in favor of defendants. Upon careful
-2-

review of Malone’s brief and the record, we conclude that his arguments either are

unreviewable because he did not provide a trial transcript, see Fed. R. App. P. 10(b);

Van Treese v. Blome, 7 F.3d 729, 729 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), or are meritless.

We also deny his motion for a remand. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 16, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00581

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.R. AND D .A.R , children,

From the 37th Judi cial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008

- CI

- 09583

Honorable John D. Gabriel Jr., Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The court reporter ’ s notification of late record is GRANTED. The reporter ’ s record is

due on December 21, 2015. No further extension will be granted.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of December, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Thomas P. Russo, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that to the best of my knowledge,
based upon a review of the annual report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2006 of the Registrant (the Report):

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



| |     |                                                                     
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ Thomas P. Russo                                                 
| |     |                                                                     
| |     | Thomas
  P. Russo                                                   
| |     | Executive
  Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of
| |     | MetaMorphix,
  Inc.                                                 

Date: June 8, 2007

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40341

Summary Calendar

__________________

FRANKIE DON HUIE,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:94-CV-49

- - - - - - - - - -

October 22, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Texas prisoner Frankie Don Huie, # 335113, appeals the

district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Huie

argues that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to

object to testimony concerning an extraneous offense or request a

limiting instruction, attack the credibility of a prosecution
No. 95-40341

-2-

witness, and conduct an adequate pre-trial investigation and that

counsel's cumulative trial errors caused Huie's trial to be 

fundamentally unfair. Having reviewed the record, we conclude

that Huie has failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 372 (1993).

For the first time on appeal, Huie argues that counsel

failed to interview his neighbors, call several witnesses, hire a

firearms expert, argue to the jury that Huie's son mistakenly

left the murder weapon loaded, or file an appeal after

contracting to do so. Huie further implies that the State

withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland,

373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). He has not shown that these issues meet

the standard for plain error. See Highlands Ins. v. National

Union Fire Ins., 27 F.3d 1027, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1994), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995). 

Huie’s motion for appointed counsel is DENIED, and the

dismissal of his § 2254 petition is AFFIRMED.
No. 87-920.

#### Meyer, Colorado Secretary of State, et al. *v.*Grant et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. [Probable jurisdiction noted, 484 U. S. 1024.] Motion of Washington Legal Foundation et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae*granted.
H. Res. 314

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 12, 1997.

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI

for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee

on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is

waived with respect to any resolution reported from that committee before November 15, 1997, providing for consideration

or disposition of any of the following:

(1) A bill or joint resolution making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998,

any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon,

or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.

(2) A bill or joint resolution that includes provisions

making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1998,

any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon,

or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon.
2

•HRES 314 EH

(3) The bill (H.R. 2621) to extend trade authorities

procedures with respect to reciprocal trade agreements,

and for other purposes.

(4) The bill (S. 1454) to provide a 6-month extension of highway, highway safety, and transit programs

pending enactment of a law reauthorizing the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time before November

15, 1997, for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend

the rules, provided that the object of any such motion is announced from the floor at least one hour before the motion

is offered. In scheduling the consideration of legislation under

this authority, the Speaker or his designee shall consult with

the minority leader or his designee.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Thomas J. AMERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; L.C. Roberts, Jr.; Dean Clay, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-60558.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Dec. 16, 2004.

Thomas J. Amerson, DeKalb, MS, pro se.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Thomas Amerson, Mississippi prisoner #32237, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim because the defendants were not state actors. Amerson contends that he was unaware of which civil complaint form to use when filing against someone other than a prison official until after he had received the district court’s opinion and final judgment, and he argues that the district court should have allowed him the opportunity to amend his complaint before dismissal.

The district court correctly determined that Amerson had alleged no facts which *361established that the defendants had acted under color of state law. *Rosborough v. Management & Training Corp.,*850 F.3d 459, 460 (5th Cir.2003). However, in addition to his allegations of constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Amerson alleged the state law claims of fraud and conversion. The district courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The district court did not consider whether diversity jurisdiction might exist. Amerson alleged damages exceeding $75,000. Amerson is a resident of Mississippi. Amerson alleged that the defendants’ addresses were all in Galveston, Texas. From the face of the complaint, it would appear that the defendants are all residents of Texas, and thus, the district court would have diversity jurisdiction. Based on the allegations of the amount in controversy and the stated addresses of the defendants in Amerson’s complaint, the district court erred in dismissing Amerson’s complaint for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without considering whether the court had diversity jurisdiction over his civil state law claims. The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to afford Amerson the opportunity to demonstrate whether the district court has diversity jurisdiction. *See Reeves v. City of Jackson, Miss.,*532 F.2d 491, 493-96 (5th Cir.1976)(reversing and remanding dismissal of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case for failure to state a claim in part because elements of diversity were met).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 99.21




CONSENT OF GARY SIMMERMAN
 
  The undersigned hereby consents to reference to the undersigned’s name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual on Form 40-F being filed by Mercator Minerals Ltd. (the “Corporation”) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with (1) the annual information form of the Corporation dated March 30, 2012 and (2) the management’s discussion and analysis of the Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2011, which includes reference to my name in connection with information relating to technical disclosure, other than in respect of the El Pilar property.
  Date: March 30, 2012
   /s/ Gary Simmerman

Gary Simmerman
EXHIBIT 10.13

                                                             [WEBSIDESTORY LOGO]

DATE: 11/15/02

TO:   Daniel Guilloux

FROM: John Hentrich

RE:   Amendment to Employment Contract

This letter serves as an amendment to the employment agreement of Daniel
Guilloux, dated August 4, 2000.

Article 10, Non-competition, is hereby amended to remove the phrase "and for a
period of 12 months" from the terms and conditions of the employment agreement.
All other terms and conditions of Article 10 and the balance of the employment
agreement remain in full effect.

The full revised text of Article 10, Non-competition, is the following:

Article 10-  Non-competition

10.1  The Director shall not during the term of the Employment Agreement,
directly or indirectly, work for or assist or advise a competitor, or establish
or acquire a business which is or could be in competition with the Company's
business and/or the business of any of its subsidiaries and/or of its affiliated
companies, or assist, advise or participate in the establishment or acquisition
of such business. The Director shall not, directly or indirectly, (attempt to)
call upon, solicit, divert or take away any of the customers, business or
Directors of the Company or its subsidiaries or affiliated companies.

10.2  The term "competitor" shall mean any business concerning or relating to
the providing of Internet related information and data services.
#### John Paul TURNER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-1966.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 29, 2004.

Decided Dec. 23, 2004.

John Paul Turner, Appellant pro se. Teresa Ellen McLaughlin, Sara Ann Ketchum, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*281Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

John Paul Turner appeals from the Tax Court’s order dismissing his petition for want of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss on the reasoning of the Tax Court. *See Turner v. Commissioner,*No. 04-7052 (U.S.T.C. July 8, 2004). We deny the motion to reconsider the order denying the motion for stay and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*