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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                           SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of MicroVision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)  the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements and
   of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)   the information contained in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/JEFF T. WILSON
    Jeff T. Wilson.
    Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 9, 2011

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 29, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00766

- CV

IN RE Lynn M. KOLB

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez , Justice

On November 20, 2017, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court is o f the

tentative opinion that a serious question concerning the relief requested requires further

consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real part y in interest may

file a response to the petition in this court no later than Dece mber 19, 2017. Any such

response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on November 29, 2017

.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017CI17273 , styled In the Interest of C.S.K. , pending in the

73rd Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David A. Canales presiding.
#### Frank L. Carpenter v. Probate Judge for Ottawa County.

*Approval of administrator’s bond by probate judge.*

A probate judge cannot arbitrarily reject an administrator’s bond, but he has the right to require the sureties to justify if there is any reasonable doubt of their responsibility; and the Supreme Court will not interfere with such an exercise of discretion unless in a clear case of its abuse.

Mandamus.

Submitted April 20.

Denied April 25.

*Frank L. Ccvrjpenter,*in person, for relator.

*Samuel L.*Tate, in person, for respondent.

Marston, J.

Delator applied for a *mandamus*commanding the respondent to approve'the administrator’s bond in the matter of the estate of Miriam Harris executed by relator as principal and Pathbun and Burch as sureties, and filed in said court November 23, 1880, and to issue to the relator letters of administration in the matter of said estate.

In obedience to an order to show cause, the respondent makes return, denying upon information and belief the responsibility of the principal and sureties mentioned, and that he had previously informed the relator that he, the judge, should require the sureties to justify on oath, unless they were known to the court, and especially if either of them resided out of the county of Ottawa. The principal and sureties resided in Kent.

Many things are set forth in the petition and answer wholly foreign to the matter at issue; the simple question being whether the respondent should be directed to approve the bond of November 23d and issue letters to relator.

That the probate judge should exercise a sound discretion in passing upon the question as to the sufficiency of bonds submitted to him for approval is evident. And he may in the exercise of such discretion require the sureties to justify *319as to tbeir pecuniary responsibility, and certainly should do so, where unknown to him or where he has any doubts as to their financial standing. He has no right to act arbitrarily in the matter and refuse to approve a bond about which no reasonable doubt could exist, and in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary we cannot presume that lie would do so. In this case the answer satisfies us that the judge acted properly. Had the sureties appeared and justified, it might appear therefrom that the bond should have been approved. It could only be in a case involving an abuse of discretion that this court would interfere.

The writ must be denied.

Cooley and Campbell, JM. concurred.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration
statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-_____) of WorldCom, Inc. of our reports
dated February 14, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements
of MFS Communications Company, Inc. as of December 31, 1995 and 1994 and for
each of the three and two years in the period ended December 31, 1995 which
reports are included in WorldCom Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K/A dated
August 25, 1996 (as amended on November 4, 1996 and December 19, 1997). We also
consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts."

                                                  COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Omaha, Nebraska
June 12, 1998
Motion Granted; Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum 

Opinion filed July 17, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00521-CV

IN RE STEVEN BALLOR, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Probate Court No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 403486

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

On July 11, 2012, relator Steven Ballor filed a motion to dismiss his petition for 

writ of mandamus because the parties have entered into a settlement agreement. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher and Jamison.
----

| Subsidiaries of the Registrant              | State or Province of Formation    |
|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                                        |                              |
| North American Subsidiaries                 |                              |
| MTS Testing Systems (Canada) Ltd.           | Ontario                           |
|                                        |                              |
| International Subsidiaries                  |                              |
| MTS Holdings France, SARL                   | France                            |
| MTS Sensor Technologie und Verwaltungs-GmbH | Germany                           |
| MTS Automotive Sensors GmbH                 | Germany                           |
| MTS Sensor Technologie GmbH and Co. KG      | Germany                           |
| MTS Systems SAS                             | France                            |
| MTS Systems GmbH                            | Germany                           |
| MTS Systems Ltd.                            | United Kingdom                    |
| MTS Systems Norden AB                       | Sweden                            |
| MTS Systems Srl                             | Italy                             |
| MTS Japan Ltd.                              | Japan                             |
| MTS Korea, Inc.                             | Korea, Republic of                |
| MTS Sensors Technology K.K.                 | Japan                             |
| MTS Systems (China), Inc.                   | Minnesota                         |
| MTS Systems (Hong Kong), Inc.               | Minnesota                         |
| MTS Systems Switzerland GmbH                | Switzerland                       |
| MTS Systems (China) Co., Ltd.               | China, People’s Republic of |

----
NIST Fundamentals of Uncertainty Analysis Short Course

February 12-14, 2013, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm

Building 222, Room A228-232

Instructors: Will Guthrie and Hung-kung Liu, NIST Statistical Engineering Division

Register for this Short Course

Purpose The NIST Fundamentals of Uncertainty Analysis Short Course covers the propagation of measurement 

uncertainty using the methods outlined in the JCGM Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement

from a statistical perspective. The short course will provide participants with a working knowledge of the 

methods needed to compute measurement uncertainties, hands-on experience in the application of these 

methods, and scientific and statistical insight into the interpretation of the results.

Agenda The NIST Fundamentals of Uncertainty Analysis Short Course is a 3-day course held on the NIST 

campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The course consists of lectures, short exercises, and hands-on applications 

covering many aspects of the propagation of uncertainty using the methods outlined in the JCGM Guide to the 

Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement.

The exercises and hands-on applications will use functions for uncertainty analysis from the free software 

package, metRology, written for the open-source R statistical computing environment. The functions can be 

accessed directly in R, or via an Excel graphical user interface that is available as a free Excel add-in called 

metRology for Microsoft Excel. Participants may bring their own Windows laptops, or laptops for use during 

the short course will be provided. If you would like to borrow a laptop, please let one of the instructors know as 

soon as possible.

Attendance is limited to 28 participants. Pre-registration through the NIST Commerce Learning Center is 

required and acceptance is determined on a first-come, first-served basis.

Topics Covered

• Importance of uncertainty analysis

• Different statistical approaches for uncertainty analysis

• Essentials of the GUM approach

o Measurement functions

o Type A and Type B methods for evaluating standard uncertainties

o Degrees of freedom

o Sensitivity coefficients

o Propagation of standard uncertainties

o Effective degrees of freedom

o Expanded uncertainties

• Software for propagation of uncertainty

• Interpretation of results

Register for this Short Course
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND THE CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         802,188
<SECURITIES>                                 3,589,601
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,392,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                   150,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,762,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,952,396
<PP&E>                                       2,344,055
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,561,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,529,722
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,711,377
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       640,962
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,986,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,529,722
<SALES>                                      7,211,497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,211,497
<CGS>                                        2,339,105
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,339,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,647,683
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,224,709
<INCOME-TAX>                                   756,401
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,468,308
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,468,308
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22



</TABLE>
----

| Subsidiaries of the Registrant              | Country, State or Province of Formation |
|---------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                        |                                    |
| MTS Japan Ltd.                              | Japan                                   |
|                                        |                                    |
| MTS Sensor Technology K.K.                  | Japan                                   |
|                                        |                                    |
| MTS Korea, Inc.                             | South Korea                             |
|                                        |                                    |
| MTS Systems (China) Co., Ltd.               | China (PRC)                             |
|                                        |                                    |
| MTS Systems GmbH                            | Germany                                 |
|                                        |                                    |
| MTS Systems Norden AB                       | Sweden                                  |
| MTS Systems Ltd.                            | United Kingdom                          |
| MTS Systems Srl                             | Italy                                   |
| MTS Holdings France, SARL                   | France                                  |
| MTS Systems SAS                             | France                                  |
| MTS Sensor Technologie GmbH and Co. KG      | Germany                                 |
| MTS Automotive Sensors GmbH                 | Germany                                 |
| MTS Sensor Technologie und Verwaltungs-GmbH | Germany                                 |
|                                        |                                    |
| MTS Systems (Hong Kong), Inc.               | Minnesota                               |
|                                        |                                    |
| MTS Systems Switzerland GmbH                | Switzerland                             |
|                                        |                                    |
| MTS Testing Systems (Canada) Ltd.           | Ontario                                 |

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

**No. 12**  **- 2029** 

ANICA ASHBOURNE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Service (global High Wealth), a Component of the U.S. Department of the Treasury; DONNA HANSBERRY, Director, GHW; DONNA PRESTIA, Assistant Director, GHW; THOMAS COLLINS, Territory Manager, GHW , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Roger W. Titus , District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv - 02818

- RWT; 8:11

- cv - 03199

- RWT; 8:11

- cv - 03456

- RWT )

Submitted : December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Anica Ashbourne, Appellant Pro Se. Melanie Lisa Glickson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee s . Unpublished opinions are not bindin g precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anica Ashbourne appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to transfer her consolidated actions to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissing her Equal Pay Act cla im for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denying her motion to proceed
pse u donymously
. Limiting our review to the issues raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we affirm the district
court’s order
. Ashbourne v. Geithner , No. 8:11

- cv - 02818

- RWT ; 8:11

- cv - 03199

- RWT; 8:11

- cv - 03456

- RWT (D. Md. July 12, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid in the decisional process
.

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAWN YAEGER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

FELIPE MARTINEZ, Jr., Warden, 

individual capacity; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-55175 

D.C. No. 

2:19-cv-07059-SVW-DFM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2024**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. 

Shawn Yaeger, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s 

summary judgment in Yaeger’s action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that 

prison defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 15 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Because the facts are known to the parties, 

we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision. We affirm.

I.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Yaeger failed 

to exhaust his administrative remedies against defendant Dr. Watson and Yaeger 

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative 

remedies were effectively unavailable to him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 

90 (2006)(“[P]roper exhaustion of administrative remedies . . . ‘means using all 

steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses 

the issues on the merits.)’” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2002) (requiring inmates 

to exhaust administrative procedures prior to filing suit in federal court); see also 

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002) (holding that revised 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e(a) applies to Bivens actions).

II.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Yaeger’s request 

for appointment of counsel because Yaeger failed to demonstrate exceptional 

circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting 

forth “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel); see 

also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 
3 

All pending motions are denied. 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 21
 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF MENTOR CORPORATION
 State of IncorporationSubsidiary
    
    or OrganizationByron Medical, Inc.
    
    ArizonaInform Solutions Inc.
    
    CaliforniaMDI Company Ltd.
    
    BermudaMentor Aesthetics B.V.
    
    NetherlandsMentor Benelux B.V.
    
    NetherlandsMentor Biologics, Inc.
    
    WisconsinMentor Biopolymers Limited
    
    United KingdomMentor Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanyMentor International Holdings Alpha, Inc.
    
    DelawareMentor International Holdings Beta, Inc.
    
    DelawareMentor International Holdings Camda, Inc.
    
    DelawareMentor International Holdings Delta, Inc.
    
    DelawareMentor Medical Inc.
    
    DelawareMentor Medical Italia, S.r.l.
    
    ItalyMentor Medical Systems (Canada), Inc.
    
    CanadaMentor Medical Systems B.V.
    
    NetherlandsMentor Medical Systems Ltd. (U.K.)
    
    EnglandMentor Medical Systems Pty. Ltd.
    
    AustraliaMentor Medical Systems, C.V.
    
    NetherlandsMentor Medical Systems, France, S.A.
    
    FranceMentor Medical Systems, Iberica, S.L.
    
    SpainMentor Minnesota Inc. (Formerly Mentor Urology, Inc.)
    
    DelawareMentor Texas GP, LLC
    
    DelawareMentor Texas LP (Formerly Mentor H/S, Inc).
    
    DelawareMentor Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (Formerly Mills Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.)
    
    OklahomaMelene Corporation (Formerly Selene Corporation)
    
    CaliforniaMentor International Sales Corporation
    
    DelawareMentor Partnership Holdings Company I, LLC
    
    DelawareMentor Holding PP, SAS
    
    FrancePerouse Plastie SAS
    
    FrancePP Sud Ltd.
    
    Republic of MauritiusPerouse Plastie Germany
    
    Germany
install polbeam/he3FrontPolarizationDeviceGroup
install polbeam/he3BackPolarizationDeviceGroup
move polbeam/frontH.outputenabled true
move polbeam/frontV.outputenabled true
move polbeam/frontL.outputenabled true
move polbeam/frontL2.outputenabled true
move polbeam/backL2.outputenabled true
move polbeam/hsample1.outputenabled true
move polbeam/frontH.tolerance 0.05
move polbeam/frontV.tolerance 0.05
move polbeam/frontL.tolerance 0.05
move polbeam/frontL2.tolerance 0.05
move polbeam/backL.tolerance 0.1
move polbeam/backL2.tolerance 0.05
move polbeam/hsample1.tolerance 0.1
move polbeam/vsample.tolerance 0.1
move polbeam/frontH 0
move polbeam/frontV 0
move polbeam/frontL 0
move polbeam/frontL2 0
move polbeam/backL 0
move polbeam/backL2 0
move polbeam/hsample1 0
move polbeam/vsample 0
EXHIBIT 32.2

                               TELVUE CORPORATION

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of TelVue Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Fell, Controller
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: May 16, 2011                      /s/ John Fell
                                        -------------
                                        John Fell
                                        Treasurer-Controller
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended March 2, 2008
(the Report), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
 /s/ Kenneth L. HignettKenneth L. Hignett, Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary  49