alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF HAWKER PACIFIC AREOSPACE FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,784,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,924,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                 22,812,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,049,000
<PP&E>                                      48,436,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,088,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,984,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       75,836,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,108,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                93,984,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,395,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,099,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,524,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,320,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,548,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,688,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,860,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,860,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.49)


</TABLE>
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-10-000002223-JAN-201208:48 AM
CLEARBLADE, INC.

STATE OF IOT

ERIC SIMONE, FOUNDER/CEO

CLEARBLADE, INC.

1701 DIRECTORS BLVD., STE 250

AUSTIN, TX 78744

ESIMONE@CLEARBLADE.COM APRIL 19 @ESIMONE928 

TH, 2023
CLEARBLADE, INC.

Primary industry verticals using ClearBlade IoT software for Industrial IoT, Edge Computing, and AI.

2

Industrial Products Transportation Energy

INDUSTRY VERTICALS
CLEARBLADE, INC.

BARRIERS TO IOT

3

 Too Many IoT Science Experiments

 Expensive, custom-built solutions

 Cloud “Lego bricks” confusion

 Build versus Buy

 Massive landscape shift happening now
CLEARBLADE, INC.

WHY ARE IoT SOFTWARE INITIATIVES DISAPPEARING?

4
CLEARBLADE, INC.

FOUNDATIONAL SOFTWARE FOR IoT

5

Operating System

Energy

Transportation

Manufacturing

Agriculture

Buildings

Healthcare

Utilities

Water

Solar

Finance

Water

Home

Insurance

IoT Foundational Software
CLEARBLADE, INC.

6

SELECT CLEARBLADE CUSTOMERS

Several industry segments emerging as major ClearBlade verticals. 

Transportation/Logistics Energy/Sustainability Connected Products
CLEARBLADE, INC.

7

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q & A
Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.5 
  
 SIRENZA MICRODEVICES, INC. 
 AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT, effective August 29, 2005 (the “Amendment”), is made and entered into by and between SIRENZA MICRODEVICES, INC. (the “Company”) and Gerald Hatley
(“Executive”). 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and
Executive previously entered into that certain Executive Employment Agreement effective as of September 1, 2003 (the “Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive now wish to amend the Agreement to incorporate the terms set forth below. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto agree
as follows: 
  
 I. Amendment. The Agreement is
hereby amended as follows: 
  
 A. Section VII. A.
thereof is amended to replace the figure of $130,000 with a figure of $150,000. 
  
 B. Section VII.C. thereof is hereby amended to add the following final sentence: “In addition, Executive shall be paid a stay bonus
in the amount of $5,000 on August 1, 2006, so long as he continues to be employed by the Company at that date, and shall be paid a stay bonus in the amount of $15,000 on August 1, 2007, so long as he continues to be employed by the Company
at that date.” 
  
 C. Section VII.H. thereof
is hereby amended to add the following final sentence: “In addition to the foregoing, so long as he remains employed by the Company, the Company shall reimburse the Executive for the tuition and certain other costs incurred by him in connection
with his enrollment in an Executive Master’s of Business Administration degree program at a Denver-area university, on terms generally consistent with the Company’s tuition reimbursement policy applicable to non-executive employees.”

  
 II. Limited Effect. Except as expressly noted
above, the terms of the Agreement remain unchanged in all respects and are in full force and effect, and such terms are incorporated herein by reference. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year indicated above. 
  

			
	 THE COMPANY:
  

	SIRENZA MICRODEVICES, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Robert Van Buskirk
	 	 	Robert Van Buskirk, President and CEO


  

	
	EXECUTIVE:
	
	/s/ Gerald Hatley
	GERALD HATLEY


  

 2
Ordered in the Southern District of Florida onMarch 21, 2006.UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDAWEST PALM BEACH DIVISIONwww.flsb.uscourts.gov 

IN RE:                                      CASE NO. 04-35435-BKC-SHFeCom eCom.com, Inc.                         CHAPTER 11Debtor.________________________ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

      I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthe Order Granting Debtor-In-Possession's Ex-Parte Motion For Reconsideration Of Order Disapproving Employment Of Debtor's Auditors Nunc Pro Tunc To November 29, 2004 And for Entry Of An Order Approving Retention Of Auditors was served viaU.S. mail to all parties listed on the attached Service List on this 29th day of March, 2006.      I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am admitted to the Bar ofthe United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and I am in compliance with the additional qualifications to practice in this court set forth in Local Rule 2090-1 (A).             KLUGER, PERETZ, KAPLAN & BERLIN,P.L.             Attorneys for Debtor-in-Possession             Miami Center, Seventeenth Floor             201 So. Biscayne Blvd.             Miami, Florida 33131             Telephone: (305) 379-9000             Facsimile: (305) 379-3428Steven H. Friedman, Judge United States Bankruptcy Court 

 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDAWEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 

IN RE                                                CASE NOS. 04-35435-SHFeCom eCom.com, Inc. Debtor.                                              Chapter 11 Proceedings________________________ 

ORDER GRANTING DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION'S EX-PARTEMOTION FORRECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DISAPPROVING EMPLOYMENT OF DEBTOR'SAUDITORS NUNC PRO TUNC TO NOVEMBER 29, 2004 AND FOR ENTRY OF ANORDER APPROVING RETENTION OF AUDITORS 

THISCAUSE came before the Court upon the Debtor's Ex-Parte Motion forReconsideration of Order Disapproving Employment of Debtor's Auditors Nunc Pro Tunc to November 29, 2004 and for Entry of Order Approving Retention of Auditors (the "Motion"), and the Court, having reviewed the file, having determined that good and sufficient cause exist in support of the relief requested, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED as follows:1. The Motion is GRANTED.2. The "Order Disapproving Employment of Debtor's Auditors Nunc Pro Tunc to November 29,2004" entered by the Court on February 23,2006 is hereby vacated.3. The "Order Approving Employment of Debtor's Auditors Nunc Pro Tunc to November 29,2004," which was originally presented by the Debtor, shall be entered by the Court.                                                ###**SUBMITTED BY:**Michael D. Seese Fla. Bar No. 997323Kluger Peretz Kaplan & Berlin, P.L. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 379-9000 Facsimile: (305) 379-3428 mseese@kpkb.comCopy to: Michael S. Seese [ Attorney Seese is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon all interested parties]KLUGER, PERETZ, KAPLAN & BERLIN, P.L.

{W:\Bankrupt\54180001/M0289578 v.l; 3/3/2006 10:18 AM}
9849.

#### English *v.*The State.

Harwell, J.

1. In tlie light of the qualifying note of the trial judge, no merit appears in the 2d ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

2. Under the facts in this case and in the light of the entire charge of the court, the excerpt from the charge upon tliq subject of direct and circumstantial evidence, as complained of in the 3d special ground of the motion for new trial, even if erroneous,- was not harmful.

*82Decided November 16, 1918.

Accusation of carrying concealed weapon, etc.; from city court of Macon—Judge Guerry. May 7, 1918.

*Julian F. Urquhart,*for plaintiff in error.

*Will Gunn, solicitor,*contra.

3. Taken with its context, and the undisputed fact that the pistol in question, at the time of its discovery, was concealed in the defendant’s “grip,” the excerpt from the charge of the court complained of in the 4th special ground of the motion for a new trial was not erroneous.

4. The charge of the court upon .the admissibility of evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure was not erroneous for any of-the reasons assigned in the 5th special ground of the motion for a new trial, when the excerpt therein complained of is considered in connection with the entire charge. *Smith*v. *State,*17 *Ga. App.*693 (88 S. E. 42) ; *Calhoun*v. *State,*17 *Ga. App.*705 (88 S. E. 586).

5. No merit appears in the 6th ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

6. The alleged newly discovered evidence, being wholly cumulative and impeaching in character, affords no ground for a new trial.

7. There was some evidence to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion. for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Aspire International, Inc., for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, I, Bok Wong, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Aspire International, Inc. 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/A for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, 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/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aspire International, Inc.
  Dated:  March 18, 2011
   Aspire International, Inc.
  By:
/s/ Bok Wong

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

 

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001. 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Havana Republic, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Leonard Sternheim, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that: 

 

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

 

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

 

Dated: November 12, 2003 

 

/s/ Leonard Sternheim

Leonard Sternheim, President
Exhibit 13.2



eLong, Inc.



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO RULE
13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT 0F 1934



In connection with the
Annual Report of eLong, Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Derek Palaschuk, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:



(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 of the Company as of December 31, 2004 and
results of operations of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004.



/s/    DEREK PALASCHUKName:

Derek Palaschuk,Title:

Chief Financial OfficerDate:

June 29, 2005
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Roy Allen GREEN, Appellant.

No. 03-4467.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) Nov. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 1, 2004.

George J. Rocktashel, Office of United States Attorney, Williamsport, PA, for Appellee.

Before ROTH, SMITH and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

*OPINION*

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

The defendant’s conviction and sentence on one count of assault with intent to commit murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1) was affirmed by this Court at docket number 02-3906. We remanded *186only for correction of the restitution order which did not specify the manner and schedule of restitution in the amount of $1,439.56.

In the defendant’s absence, the District Court modified its restitution order to read: “The restitution imposed in this case shall be due immediately, shall be paid through the Clerk, U.S. District Court for disbursement to the Bureau of Prisons, and is payable during the period of incarceration with any balance to be paid within two (2) years of release from custody. All other aspects of the sentence shall remain as previously imposed.”

Defendant was represented by counsel during his first appeal, but now proceeds *pro se,*contending that he should have been present when the restitutionary order was amended. He also objects to its entry without consideration of his financial condition and because it does not establish a monthly repayment schedule. Defendant asserts that his total incarceration sentence amounts to sixty-nine years, 10-months, and that he has no assets.

The District Court complied with our direction in the defendant’s first appeal. The issue was an administrative matter and did not affect the sentence in any material aspect. Accordingly, the defendant had no right to be present when the amended order was entered. The defendant’s financial condition was duly considered when the original order of restitution was entered. That issue was not the subject of our remand.

The motion for appointment of counsel is denied as moot.

Accordingly, the order of the District Court will be affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as createdby Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officerof First Consulting Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

 

(i)             the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 (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 Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:   May 10, 2006 | /s/ STEVEN HECK                                |   |
|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                            | Steven Heck                                    |
|                            | President and Interim Chief Executive  Officer |

 

The foregoing certification is beingfurnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 andin accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238. This certification shall notbe deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be incorporated by reference in anyfiling of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, whethermade before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporationlanguage in such filing.

 

1

----
10135.

#### Bailey *v.*The State.

Decided January 9, 1919.

Indictment for possession of liquor; from Cherokee superior court —Judge Morris. August 26, 1918.

*Howell*Brooke, for plaintiff in error.

*John T. Dorsey, solicitor-general, Herbert Clay,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. It was not error for the judge in his charge to remind the jury of the oath they had taken, that they would well and truly try the case, and to read the oath to them. The statement of the court, in this connection, that the jury had “sworn to try the case ‘according to the opinion you entertain of the evidence as adduced on the trial of the case/ ” while slightly inaccurate, was not materially erroneous.

2. Under the facts of the case there was no error in the charge of the court as complained of in the 2d special ground of the motion for a new trial.

3. The venue was properly laid in the indictment, and was clearly and ' undisputedly proved by the evidence, and the court instructed the jury that the burden was on the State to prove every material fact alleged in'the indictment. There was no contention whatever as to the venue 'during the trial of the case. Under such circumstances it affords no ground for a new trial that the judge failed to charge the jury specifically that it was" incumbent on the State to prove that, the defendant had the whisky in his possession,' custody, or control *in the county of Cherokee.*

4. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did npt err in overruling the motion for a new trial. ,

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of CompX  International  Inc.  (the
Company)  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  March 31,  2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A.
Bowers, Vice Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; 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/David A. Bowers
----------------------------------------
David A. Bowers
Vice Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
May 4, 2006



Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.


<PAGE>
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

CECILE FOY GSANGER NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

August 17, 2015

Hon. John T. Hubert

District Attorney

700 E. Kleberg, 2nd Floor

P. O. Box 1471

Kingsville, TX 78363

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Vincent Gonzalez

Asst. District Attorney

P. O. Box 1471

Kingsville, TX 78364

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Jaime E. Carrillo

Attorney at Law

721 East King Avenue

Kingsville, TX 78363

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00237

- CR

Tr.Ct.No. 12

- CRF

- 0137

Style: The State of Texas v. Isaac Sastaita

The above

- referenced cause has been set for submis sion without oral argument

on Monday, September 07, 2015, before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Rogelio

Valdez, Justice Nelda V. Rodriguez, and Justice Gregory T. Perkes

.

Very truly yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:ch
SCAD-20-0000767

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner,

vs.

DANIEL JOSEPH O’PHELAN, (Bar No. 7843),

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC #18-0245, #20-0183)

ORDER OF TRANSFER TO INACTIVE STATUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon review of the December 22, 2020 petition filed by

the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) on behalf of, and with

the approval of, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of

the State of Hawai#i, requesting this court to immediately

transfer Respondent Daniel J. O’Phelan to inactive status,

pursuant to Rules 2.19 (b) and 2.19(c) of the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), we conclude

temporary transfer to inactive status is warranted, pending the

provision of further evidence in support of Respondent O’Phelan’s

assertions that he is currently incapable of practicing law or

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAD-20-0000767

24-DEC-2020

12:02 PM

Dkt. 3 ORD
defending himself in a pending disciplinary matter. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Daniel J. O’Phelan

is immediately transferred to inactive status in this

jurisdiction, pursuant to RSCH Rules 2.19(b) and 2.19(c),

effective with the filing of this order. Respondent O’Phelan

shall remain on inactive status until further order of this

court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Daniel J.

O’Phelan shall submit, within 60 days of the entry date of this

order, further evidence in support of his assertions regarding

his incapacity, including medical documentation, obtained at his

expense.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ODC shall in the interim

suspend and hold in abeyance proceedings against Respondent

O’Phelan to the extent required by RSCH Rule 2.19(h).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Disciplinary Board

shall, pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.19(d), cause a notice of this

transfer to inactive status to be published in a newspaper of

general circulation in the judicial circuit in which Respondent

O’Phelan maintained his practice. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the clerk of the court,

pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.19(e), shall transmit a certified copy of

this order to all judges of the State of Hawai#i and shall 

2
request their assistance and such action as may be indicated,

pursuant to RSCH Rule 2.20, to protect the interests of both

Respondent O’Phelan and his clients, if any.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 24, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

3