alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

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 Mercari Communications Group, Ltd. on Form 10-QSB
for the  period ending February 28, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the  Report), I, Robert W. Marsik, Chief
Executive/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 the best
of my  knowledge and belief:

|(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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March
21, 2007/s/  Robert W. Marsik
Robert W. Marsik
President
(Principal Executive and
Financial Officer)

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 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.

---
Exhibit 11.1
<TABLE>
                     SOLECTRON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
<CAPTION>
                                     Three Months Ended
                                        November 30,
                                     ------------------
                                       1997      1996
                                     --------  --------
<S>                                  <C>       <C>
Weighted average number of 
 shares of common stock and
 common stock equivalents:

Primary:
 Common stock                         114,834   105,892
 Common stock equivalents -
  stock options                         4,402     3,134
                                     --------  --------
    Total primary shares              119,236   109,026
                                     --------  --------

Fully diluted:
 Common shares issuable
  upon assumed conversion 
  of convertible subordinated
  notes                                 6,803     6,804

 Incremental increase in 
  common stock equivalents 
  using end of period market 
  price                                   --        771
                                     --------  --------
    Total fully diluted shares        126,039   116,601    
                                     ========  ========


Net income - primary                 $ 44,888  $ 31,475

 Interest expense for
  convertible subordinated 
  notes, net of taxes                   2,398     2,277
                                     --------  --------
Net income - fully diluted           $ 47,286  $ 33,752                                                  
                                     ========  ========

Net income per share - primary       $   0.38  $   0.29
                                     ========  ========

Net income per share - 
 fully diluted                       $   0.38  $   0.29
                                     ========  ========
</TABLE>
Article Ref: F-049

Measurement Matters, Vol. 11, Issue 4 October 2021 Page 1

Notice: No New Edition of Handbook 133

At the 105th and 106th NCWM Annual Meetings there were no items adopted or modifications made to 

NIST Handbook 133 (2020), Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods. The 2020 Edition of NIST 

Handbook 133 will be recognized as the current edition of the handbook until NCWM and NIST agree to 

publish a new edition. 

Please contact Lisa Warfield at lisa.warfield@nist.gov for additional information or assistance related to 

NIST Handbook 133.
* 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. 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-21166 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MAXIMILIANO MOLINA-PORTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-405-2 February 19, 2002 Before POLITZ, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### Maximiliano Molina-Portillo appeals his conviction following a guilty plea to aiding and abetting the possession of a counterfeit and falsely made Immigration and1 United States v. Guzman-Ocampo , 236 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct.

2600 (2001).

2 168 F.3d 141 (5th Cir. 1999).

3 United States v. Marek , 238 F.3d 310 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 37 (2001). 2 

### Naturalization Service (INS) Form I-131, a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 1546(a). He contends that the indictment was constitutionally insufficient and that the factual basis of his plea failed to establish the charged offense. We review Molina’s challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment, raised for the first time on appeal, under the standard of “maximum liberality.” 1 

### Construing the indictment liberally as we must, see United States v. Cabrera-Teran , 2 

### we hold that the indictment’s citation to 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) was sufficient to inform Molina of the charge. Molina concedes that he did not raise the objection to the factual basis in the district court; therefore, our review is for plain error only. 3 

### We hold that 8 C.F.R. § 223.2(a) supports a determination under the plain-error standard of review that the indictment’s reference to Form I-131 necessarily includes its supporting documentation.4 See , e.g. , Moskal v. United States , 498 U.S. 103 (1990) (rejecting the same argument in

the context of 18 U.S.C. § 2314); see also United States v. Mitchell , 588 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1979). 3 

### Applying the plain-error standard of review, we also reject Molina’s argument that the terms “falsely made” and “counterfeited” are interchangeable for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). 4 

### For these reasons, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00514-CR

Eugene Hodge, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3020465, HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Eugene Hodge seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for murder. The trial

court has certified that Hodge waived the right of appeal. The appeal is dismissed. See Tex.R. App.

P. 25.2(d).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 23, 2004

Do Not Publish
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. DA 23-0515 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

TERRY LEE HAGBERG, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

FILED 

OCT 1 6 2023 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of 0,./Iontana 

GRANT 

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until November 20, 2023, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant's opening brief. 

10/17/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0515
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Vernon Richard Sanders, * From the 104th District Court

 of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 20179B.

Vs. No. 11-16-00283-CR * May 25, 2017

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the 

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RICHARD G. BATES, CAROLE A. BATES 

AND STEPHANIE BARKER,

Petitioners

v.

ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES INC., 

BRENNTAG NORTHEAST, INC., BARLEY 

SNYDER, LLP, BARNES & THORNBURG, 

LLP AND MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, 

LLP,

Respondents

PETITION OF: RICHARD G. BATES, 

BATES AND STEPHANIE BARKER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 650 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of May, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
**UN PUBLISHED**  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6938** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. SHAUNTE TORRANE LASSITER , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2:07

- cr - 00060

- RBS

- TEM

- 3 )

Submitted : August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Shaunte Torrane Lassiter, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURI AM: Shaunte Torrane Lassiter appeals the district court ’ s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)( 2 ) (2006) motion and motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the court’s denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief . Acc ordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Lassiter , No. 2:07

- cr - 00060

- RBS

- TEM

- 3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2012)
. Because the district court lacked authority to reconsider its initial order, see United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233, 235

- 36 (4th Cir. 2010), we affirm the court’s den ial of Lassiter’s motion to reconsider. 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
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
The Board of Directors
The Cerplex Group, Inc.:
 
     Our report dated February 23, 1998, contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, has net
stockholders' and working capital deficiencies as well as insufficient funds to
pay its secured and unsecured debt obligations which raise substantial doubt
about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules do not include any adjustments that
might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
 
     We consent to the use of our reports incorporated by reference herein and
to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the prospectus.
 
                                                /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
 
                                            ------------------------------------
 
Orange County, California
March 13, 1998
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Emoji Company GmbH

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.:

1:20−cv−04911

Honorable John

Robert Blakey

The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability

Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated

Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, December 22, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Defendant previously

filed a motion to dismiss [43] and now seeks to withdraw that motion [49]. The Court

grants the motion to withdraw [49], strikes the motion to dismiss [43], and vacates the

briefing schedule set on the motion to dismiss, see [45]. Mailed notice(gel, )

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-04911 Document #: 55 Filed: 12/22/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2947
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          50,074
<SECURITIES>                                   121,970
<RECEIVABLES>                                  118,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,645
<INVENTORY>                                     51,631
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               362,970
<PP&E>                                          98,707
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 439,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           86,970
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       124,164
<OTHER-SE>                                     228,489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   439,623
<SALES>                                        357,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               357,129
<CGS>                                          151,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                93,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                118,695
<INCOME-TAX>                                    41,544
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             77,151
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,151
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.34
        

</TABLE>
#### HUANG v. WILLIS

No. 302P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 632

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20113

Summary Calendar

DONALD L. BLOOM,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MEMORIAL HERMANN HOSPITAL SYSTEM; MEMORIAL HERMANN 

MEMORIAL CITY HOSPITAL,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-3380

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Donald L. Bloom filed a civil action against Memorial Hermann Hospital 

System and Memorial Hermann Memorial City Hospital (collectively referred 

to herein as Memorial Hermann Health System).1 In this court, Bloom appeals 

 

* 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.

1 Memorial Hermann Health System is incorrectly identified in case filings and the 

caption as Memorial Hermann Hospital System, Memorial Hermann Memorial City 

Hospital, and Memorial Hermann Hospital System et al.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20113 Document: 00513532639 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2016
No. 15-20113

2

the district court’s denial of his motion for a default judgment and the 

dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a default judgment for 

abuse of discretion. See Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 767 (5th Cir. 2001). Here, 

Bloom asserts that he was entitled to a default judgment because Memorial 

Hermann Health System filed its first responsive pleading one day late. 

However, even in the face of a technical default, such as when a party files its 

first responsive pleading late, a movant is not entitled to a default judgment 

as a matter of right. See Ganther v. Ingle, 75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in 

determining that a default judgment was unwarranted. See Lewis, 236 F.3d 

at 767; Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead and Sav. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274, 

276 (5th Cir. 1989).

Regarding Bloom’s second claim, we conduct a de novo review of a district 

court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Randall D. Wolcott, 

M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 762 (5th Cir. 2011). “A case is properly 

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court lacks the 

statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Hooks v. Landmark 

Indus., Inc. 797 F.3d 309, 312 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Bloom has not met his burden of identifying a statutory or 

constitutional provision giving the district court authority to adjudicate his 

case. See id.; Wolcott, 635 F.3d at 762. Thus, he has shown no error in the 

dismissal of his action for want of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20113 Document: 00513532639 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2016
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable T. hi. Trlnble 

Flr*t Asalotant t3tate 8uperintondant 

kust in, Toxarr 

Dear Sir; 

In your letter of Ye 

our opinion in roapon80 to t 

*Can a county bo 

oounty 8upwlatonbent 

der that he say 

lnterert of the 

o f?lo isl oath a n 

Revlmed Olvil t3t 

r his emttlty?” 

l ttt mtut taka tbr 

Art1010 ede9, 

08 are prworlbed 

Othw 0pe0m6 dutr l tatutQa. Ther e 1 s ne 

sounty board or tru*teae 

or in the Tortn or gltlag 

WLtdb
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Thecertifications set forth below are hereby submitted to the Securities andExchange Commission pursuant to, and solely for the purpose of complying with,Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code in connectionwith the filing on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commissionof the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MAIR Holdings, Inc. andsubsidiaries (the “Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”).

 

Eachof the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,respectively, of the Company, hereby certifies that, as of the end of theperiod covered by the Report:

 

1.               Such Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/  PAUL F. FOLEY                                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Paul  F. Foley                                         |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer                 |
| February  14, 2005                                     |
|                                                   |
|                                                   |
| /s/  ROBERT E. WEIL                                    |   |
| Robert  E. Weil                                        |
| Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
| February  14, 2005                                     |

 

1

----
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM,

PLAINTIFF,

V.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A,

DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO.: 1:20-CV-05058

JUDGE THOMAS M. DURKIN

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JEFFREY CUMMINGS

DECLARATION OF ANN MARIE SULLIVAN

I, Ann Marie Sullivan, of the City of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law, duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of Illinois

and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. I am one of the attorneys 

for Plaintiff, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (“HUJ” or “Plaintiff”). Except as otherwise

expressly stated to the contrary, I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if called as 

a witness, I could and would competently testify as follows:

2. Since and pursuant to entry of the TRO, several financial accounts associated with the 

Defendant Internet Stores have been frozen.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that 

the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this the September 28, 2020 at Chicago, Illinois.

/s/ Ann Marie Sullivan

Counsel for Plaintiff

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Case: 1:20-cv-05058 Document #: 22-1 Filed: 09/28/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:946