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

NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 27, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Jeffrey C. Benzing, Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative 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.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



|                     |  |     |  |                                                          
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: July 31, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jeffrey C. Benzing                                   
|                     |  |     |  | Jeffrey C. Benzing                                       
|                     |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative
Officer
|                     |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 13.2

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer

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

In connection with the annual report of BCD Semiconductor
Manufacturing Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jean-Claude Zhang, 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: May 25, 2011



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Jean-Claude Zhang                  
|Jean-Claude Zhang                      
|Chief Financial Officer                
|BCD Semiconductor Manufacturing Limited
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 499 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 226
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 499

                          [Report No. 105-623]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3682) to amend title 18, 
  United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to 
 avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 1998

   Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3682) to amend title 18, 
  United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to 
 avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3682) to amend title 18, 
United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to 
avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. 
The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The amendment 
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill 
shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without 
intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the bill, as 
amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
                                     





                                                 House Calendar No. 226

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 499

                          [Report No. 105-623]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3682) to amend title 18, 
  United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to 
 avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 14, 1998

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

EXHIBIT 4.1  


 
  AMENDED AND RESTATED ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT    
    



        This Amended and Restated Asset Purchase Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of this 12th day of February, 2004, by and between
DAKSOFT, Inc., a South Dakota corporation, dba ReserveIt ("Seller"), and Spherix Incorporated, a Delaware corporation ("Buyer"). 


        Payment
at Closing of the number of shares of Spherix Incorporated common stock (Nasdaq symbol SPEX) determined by dividing Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00) by the average of
the per share last sale prices for such common stock as reported in The Wall Street Journal for the ten (10) trading days immediately preceding the date which is three (3) trading days
immediately preceding the Closing Date. The shares of common stock will not be registered at the Closing; however, within ninety (90) days of the Closing Date, the Buyer will use its reasonable
efforts to file an appropriate registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission to register such shares for resale by the Seller and the Buyer will use its reasonable efforts to
cause such registration to thereafter become effective. Notwithstanding such registration, it is understood that the shares of common stock will be issued with restrictions on sale as follows:
(1) Seller may not sell any Spherix stock for a period of six (6) months following Closing; and (2) After six months, Seller may sell Spherix Incorporated common stock in maximum
increments of 1,000 shares per day/12,000 shares per month. Certificates evidencing the shares of common stock of Buyer will contain appropriate legends. Buyer and Seller will also explore the
possibility of identifying a single individual or entity or a small group of individuals or entities to acquire the above-described shares of common stock in the event Seller seeks to sell said
shares. 











QuickLinks


AMENDED AND RESTATED ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50293 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LEE ROYAL JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-96-CR-141-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - February 16, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Lee Royal James appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute crack cocaine and possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). He first argues that prosecutorial misconduct during rebuttal argument deprived him of a fair trial. The record reveals that the remarks, when viewed individually or together, did not deprive him of a fair trial, and even if the remarks were prejudicial, the harm was remedied by the district court’sNo. 97-50293 -2- curative instructions. United States v. Montoya-Ortiz , 7 F.3d 1171, 1178 (5th Cir. 1993). James also argues that the district court erred in holding him accountable for 111.8 grams of crack cocaine. We find that the district court’s drug-quantity calculation was not clearly

erroneous. United States v. Bermea , 30 F.3d 1539, 1575 (5th Cir. 1994). James further avers that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant a downward departure because his criminal history points overstated the seriousness of his past criminal conduct. He does not allege that the district court made a legal error or misapplied the guidelines. This court has jurisdiction to review a defendant's challenge to a sentence only if it was imposed in violation of law; was imposed as a result of a misapplication of the sentencing guidelines; was the result of an upward departure; or was imposed for an offense for which there is no sentencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). The imposition of a lawful sentence coupled with the decision not to depart from the guidelines provides no ground for relief. Unites States v. Miro , 29 F.3d 194, 198-99 (5th Cir. 1994). Because James’ challenge to his sentence involves only his dissatisfaction with the district court's refusal to grant a downward departure and not a legal error or misapplication of theNo. 97-50293 -3- guidelines, none of the above statutory factors apply, there are no grounds for relief.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8and Form S-3 of Xenonics Holdings, Inc. of our report dated November 10, 2005, with respect to ouraudits of the consolidated financial statements of Xenonics Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries as ofSeptember 30, 2005 and 2004 and for each of the two years in the period ended September 30, 2005,which is included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2005.We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Experts” in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-3.Eisner LLPNew York, New York
#### George Milton BRITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL DISTRICT COURT, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 04-7395.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 23, 2004.

George Milton Britt, Appellant pro se.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

George Milton Britt appeals the district court’s order denying relief without prejudice on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Britt v. Gen. Dist. Court,*No. CA-04-801-1 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 16, 2004 & entered Aug. 17, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *278and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ealy v. EVC Engage, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 2 1

- 00 095

- CV

Trial court case number: 2020

- 09144

Trial court: 334 th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas

Appellant Lawrence Ealy ’s motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED

.

It is so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Amparo Guerr a

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 2, 2023

En banc court consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Hightower,

Countiss, Rivas

- Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

Justice Landau not participating

.
Case: 1:20-cr-00399 Document #: 73 Filed: 05/06/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:452
Case: 1:20-cr-00399 Document #: 73 Filed: 05/06/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:453
Case: 1:20-cr-00399 Document #: 73 Filed: 05/06/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:454
Case: 1:20-cr-00399 Document #: 73 Filed: 05/06/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:455
Case: 1:20-cr-00399 Document #: 73 Filed: 05/06/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:456
Case: 1:20-cr-00399 Document #: 73 Filed: 05/06/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:457
#### FORMYDUVAL v. LOCKEY

No. 263P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 224

Petition by defendants (Eldiweiss Lockey, Willard Formyduval, and Graolin Formyduval) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-Q of Laxai Pharma, Ltd. (the "Company") for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, I, Naren Mallakunta, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.           Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:  November 19, 2010
LAXAI PHARMA, LTD.By:
/s/ Naren MallakuntaNaren Mallakunta
#### Edwin Finch v. Joseph Rhodes and Eliza Rhodes.

*Ejectment*— Life *estate.*

*A*widow, whose husband died seized of land, and left neither parents nor children, has a life estate in the land under the Statute of Descents, and is entitled to possession until a superior right is shown; it is not a sufficient reason for disturbing it that there is a possibility that an administrator may be appointed who may be empowered to sell the land to pay creditors of the estate.

Error to Jackson.

Submitted June 21.

Decided June 27.

Ejectment. Defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

*A. <& G. A. Blair*for appellants.

*Mel/oille Mg Gee*for appellee.

Campbell, J.

Finch brought ejectment and recovered below for a life estate in certain lands occupied by defendants, — the term being for the life of Eliza Bhodes, — which she deeded to plaintiff on the .28th of July, 1870, by quitclaim of such rights as she then had.

She was widow of Augustus T. Finch, who died seized in 1856 leaving neither parents nor children, so that she became under the statute entitled to hold for life. Tin's title when she deeded to plaintiff had ftever been disturbed or altered unless by an administrator’s sale made in 1858 and confirmed, at which she was the purchaser, but never obtained a deed because of - some supposed invalidity. If this sale was void it could not change her rights, and if it-was valid plaintiff has succeeded to her rights of every nature, including this. It is therefore unimportant on this issue.

The defendants however claim that they own debts against the estate, and that hereafter an administrator may be appointed who may be authorized to sell the lands to pay creditors. If that event should happen — which is not *34apparently a very certain thing — it will be time enough to deal with it when it occurs. There is no present adverse right, and the persons entitled under the Statute of Descents have a right to retain possession until a superior claim is brought.

The judgment below was correct and must be affirmed with costs, and the case remanded for such further proceedings as may be allowable.

The other Justices concurred.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                             NOVELLUS SYSTEMS, INC.

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Novellus Systems, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 25, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard S. Hill, Chairman
of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive 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.

Dated: November 4, 2004                   By: /s/ Richard S. Hill
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Richard S. Hill
                                              Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                              and Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: ANTONIO JOSE ADAME

,

Appellant

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00 0 82

- C R

Appeal from the

409 th D istrict C ourt

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20 0 6 0D0 0063

- 40 9

- 1 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to file

the brief until February 17

, 201 9

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE STATE ’S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime E. Esparza

, the State ’s attorney, prepare the

State ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 17 , 201 9

.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 4 th day of January , 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
10242.

#### Slack *v.*Pettigrew *et al.*

Decided April 16, 1919.

.Certiorari; from Morgan superior court—Judge Park. November 18, 1918. . '

Suit for money had and received was brought in a justice’s court against officers of a lodge by a deceased member’s' widow, who contended that as his nearest relative she was entitled on his death to certain money from the lodge which was paid to others instead of to herself. There was evidence that Jim Booker, the treasurer of the lodge, who was one of the defendants, paid the money in question to persons other than the plaintiff, and that some of it was turned over by him to Perry, another defendant, and paid over by Perry under his direction. It does not appear that when Perry paid out the money he knew that it belonged to or was claimed by the plaintiff. The defendants other than Perry testified that they did not receive any of the money and had nothing to do with its payment. The trial of the case by a jury in the justice’s court resulte'd in a verdict for the defendants. The judge of the superior court, on certiorari, granted’a new trial as to Jim Booker, but overruled the 'Certiorari as to the other defendants. The plaintiff excepted to this judgment.

*M. C.*Few, for plaintiff.

Luke, J.

Upon the petition . for certiorari and the answer thereto the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari as to all the defendants therein named except Jim Booker. See *Citizens Bank of Fitzgerald*v. *Rudisill,*4 *Ga. App.*37 (5), 42 (60 S. E. 818).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of American Power Conversion Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending June 27, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rodger B. Dowdell,Jr., Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)      The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Rodger  B. Dowdell, Jr.                     |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Rodger B.  Dowdell, Jr.                         |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

August 6, 2004

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separatedisclosure document.

 

1

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certifications**

 

I, Edward Escudero, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Petro Distributing, 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 financialcondition, 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 ActRules 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 theeffectiveness 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 mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of 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 financialreporting which 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 controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 29, 2005