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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Barnes & Noble, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
May 1, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph J. Lombardi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Joseph J. LombardiJoseph J. LombardiChief Financial OfficerBarnes & Noble, Inc.June 30, 2010


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 required by Section 906, 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 10.5

                          North American Geophysical
                            29 Retirement Road
                               Nassau, Bahamas


                    AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 1, 1997


On December 1, 1997 North American Geophysical, Inc. ("North American") and
AmeriTech Petroleum, Inc. ("AmeriTech") entered into a contract (the
"Contract").  Both parties have agreed with the execution of this amendment to
modify, amend and clarify the original Contract to grant AmeriTech, its
successors, assigns and/or any subsidiary it owns or may own, a non-exclusive,
worldwide, perpetual, royalty free license and the right to use any and all
technology (the "Technology") developed under the Contract.  North American
agrees to provide training to AmeriTech and/or its assigns to use the
technology in the field as may be required by Ameritech and/or its assigns. 
The Technology was developed by North American who by this amendment and the
original Contract retains the ownership to the Technology and the rights to
continue developing said Technology.  North American agrees to grant AmeriTech
and/or its assigns the right to use any and all future developments to the
Technology in exchange for payments North American deems necessary, if any,
for such development.  Any charges billed by North American will be reasonable
and customary for the time and expenses required for such development.

North American further agrees to process any and all data AmeriTech and/or its
assigns may gather while using the Technology for a reasonable fee that in no
case will exceed fees charged by North American for the same or similar work
to its other customers.  In addition, North American agrees that should it
cease processing the data for any reason or sell either the Technology,
company or the rights to the Technology, whether by merger or license to
another party or any other form of sale, it will provide any and all software
necessary to process the data to AmeriTech and/or its assigns along with the
documentation and techniques required for AmeriTech and/or its assigns to
process the data themselves.


Accepted:                          Accepted:



/s/ M.W. Taylor                       /s/ Brent Wagman
_____________________  March 1, 1999  ______________________  March 1, 1999
M.W. Taylor, Director                 Brent Wagman, President
North American Geophysical, Inc.      AmeriTech Petroleum, Inc.
#### State v. Ezzell

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 417

No. 217P07

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-624)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. _

2. Allowed 06/27/07

3. Denied 06/27/07
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000037828-JUN-201209:51 AM
#### Wu ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73013.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.*

Filed Nov. 15, 2006.

Troy Nader Moslemi, Esq., Law Office of Troy Nader Moslemi, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John F. Schmillen, Esq., Office of The U.S. Trustee Regional Headquarters, Law Bldg., Cedar Rapids, IA, for Respondent.

Before LEAVY, GOULD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Wu Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is based on omissions and inconsistencies that go to the heart of Zhang’s asylum claim, and is therefore supported by substantial evidence. *See Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). The discrepancies between Zhang’s testimony *674and affidavit regarding the number of times he was arrested, interrogated and beaten by the police were not minor, and his encounters with the police were central to his claim of persecution. *See id.*Moreover, the IJ considered and properly rejected Zhang’s explanation for the discrepancy. *See Kaur v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir.2004).

Because Zhang fails to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, he necessarily fails to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Zhang failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to China. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.4

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                      SPATIALIZER AUDIO LABORATORIES, INC.

        FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of Spatializer Audio
Laboratories, Inc. (the "Corporation") resolutions were duly adopted setting
forth a proposed amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation, declaring said amendment to be advisable and calling for such
amendment to be voted upon by the stockholders of the Corporation at the annual
meeting of such stockholders. The resolution setting forth the proposed
amendment is as follows:

        "RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of Spatializer Audio
Laboratories, Inc. (the "Corporation") be amended by changing the Article
thereof numbered "IV" so that, as amended, said Article shall be and read as
follows:

                "SECTION 1. The total number of shares of all classes of stock
        which the Corporation shall have the authority to issue is 66,000,000
        shares, consisting of 65,000,000 shares of Common Stock, par value $.01
        per share ("Common Stock"), and 1,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock, par
        value $.01 per share ("Preferred Stock")."

        SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to a resolution of its Board of
Directors, the above amendment was put forth for a vote of the stockholders of
the Corporation at the Corporation's Annual Meeting of Stockholders, duly called
and held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporations
Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting the necessary number of shares as
required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

        THIRD: That at any time prior to the filing of the foregoing Certificate
of Amendment of Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation, notwithstanding
authorization of such proposed Certificate of Amendment by the stockholders of
the Corporation, the Board of Directors may abandon such proposed Certificate of
Amendment without further action by the stockholders.

        FOURTH: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with Section
242 of the General Corporation law of the State of Delaware.

        FIFTH: That the capital of the Corporation shall not be reduced under or
by reason of said amendment.

                                    SPATIALIZER AUDIO LABORATORIES, INC.

                                    By: /s/ Henry R. Mandell
                                       -------------------------------
                                        Henry R. Mandell
                                        Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                                      [LOGO]
                                     MISSION
                                    RESOURCES

December 31, 2001

Mr. J. P. Bryan
Torch Energy Advisors, Inc.
1221 Lamar, Suite 1600
Houston, Texas 77010

Dear J.P.:

As we discussed, pursuant to Section 16.2(a) of the Master Services Agreement
between Torch Etal and Mission, Mission Resources is electing to terminate the
Corporate Administration Services Agreement between Mission and TEAI. As
required in the Master Services Agreement, the termination date will be April
30, 2002. Mission has agreed to pay Torch a $620,000 cancellation fee upon
termination. This payment and termination of the Contract will relieve Mission
of any and all future obligations associated with the Contract.

We appreciate the very professional and efficient execution of the Contract by
Torch over the past years.

Sincerely,

/s/ Jon Clarkson
Jon Clarkson
President

Acknowledged and Agreed
/s/ J. P. Bryan
-------------------------
J. P. Bryan

                                      *
           1331 LAMAR, SUITE 1455  HOUSTON, TEXAS 77010-3039
      TEL (713) 495-3000 FAX (713) 652-2916 WWW.MISSIONRESOURCESCORP.COM
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Supreme Court

Brandon H. Eaton, Respondent, 

v.

State of South Carolina, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001973

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

Appeal from Spartanburg County

R. Ferrell Cothran Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2019-MO-016

Submitted February 15, 2019 – Filed April 3, 2019

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant 

Attorney General Johnny Ellis James Jr., both of 

Columbia, for Petitioner.

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of 

Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: We issued a writ of certiorari to review the post-conviction relief 

(PCR) court's grant of Brandon H. Eaton's application for PCR. We now dismiss 

the writ as improvidently granted. 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Aaron Tyrell W. and Others, Infants. Ruth B., Appellant; Family Support Services Unlimited et al., Respondents.

[870 NYS2d 301]

Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen Alpert, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2006, which terminated respondent mother’s parental rights to the subject children upon a fact-finding determination of her mental retardation, and committing the children’s guardianship and custody to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*420While respondent displays adequate adaptive skills in many areas, there is clear and convincing evidence that she is unable, at present and for the foreseeable future, to provide proper and adequate care for the subject children by reason of her mental retardation *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [c]; [6] [b]; *Matter of Leomia Louise C.,*41 AD3d 249 [2007]).

Respondent’s claim that the court erred in not holding a dispositional hearing is unpreserved. Were we to review it, we would find such a hearing unnecessary in finding termination of parental rights to be in the best interests of the children *(Matter of Antonio V.,*268 AD2d 341, 342 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 751 [2000]), despite their bond with their mother, given her inability to care for them *(see Matter of Joyce T.,*65 NY2d 39, 49-50 [1985]).

Respondent is not entitled to a new hearing based on ineffective assistance of counsel, as she failed to demonstrate actual prejudice and deprivation of meaningful representation by reason of counsel’s deficiency *(see Matter of James P.,*17 AD3d 733 [2005]). Concur—Saxe, J.E, Nardelli, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 21


              Subsidiaries of Allied Healthcare International Inc.



Subsidiary                                         Jurisdiction of Organization

Health Management, Inc.                                      Delaware
Steri-Pharm, Inc.                                            New York
The PromptCare Companies, Inc.                              New Jersey
RespiFlow, Inc.                                              Florida
Allied Healthcare Group Limited                              England
   Transworld Healthcare (UK) Limited                        England
     Staffing Enterprise Limited                             England
     Staffing Enterprise (PSV) Limited                       England
     Inver Healthcare Limited                                England
     Balfor Medical Limited                                  England
     Medic-One Group Limited                                 England
     Crystalglen Limited                                     England
     Nightingale Nursing Bureau Limited                      England
     Omnicare Limited                                        England
       Allied Healthcare (UK) Limited                        England
       Allied Oxycare Limited                                England
         Medigas Limited                                     England
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Deshawn Alexander, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 693]

— Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), imposed June 25, 2012, upon his conviction of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v Cali*
      *955
      *fornia*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ, concur.
cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge Steven Bradley Hodges Attorney General/Carson City Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2

(0) I.947A
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,600
<SECURITIES>                                     8,699
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                       350
<INVENTORY>                                      2,532
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,870
<PP&E>                                           3,052
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,719
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,765
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,237
<SALES>                                          6,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,876
<CGS>                                          (5,212)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (5,212)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (19,276)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (19)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,071)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,071)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,071)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.19)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20125 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LARRY A. GRAVES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CR-H-95-243-1

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Larry Graves appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to reinstate his appeal from the dismissal of his appeal from the magistrate judge’s ruling finding him guilty of resisting arrest and parking violations on federal property. The Government has filed in this court a motion to dismiss Graves’ appeal. In his two-page brief on appeal, Graves argues only theNo. 96-20125 - 2 - sufficiency of the evidence that the Government presented at his trial before the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge’s ruling is not a final judgment from a district court necessary to invoke this court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As Graves provides no argument on the only appealable issue, whether the district court erred by denying Graves’ motion to reinstate his appeal from the magistrate judge’s ruling, the issue is deemed abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). With no appealable issue before the court, the Government’s motion is GRANTED and Graves’ appeal is DISMISSED.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 25, 2015

No. 04-15-00440-CV

Joe GOMEZ and Janie Gomez,

Appellants

v.

Thomas L. DASHIELL,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-241-CCL

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On June 29, 2015, appellants filed what this court construed as a notice of appeal from 

the county court’s June 18, 2015 judgment. On July 6, 2015, appellants also filed an affidavit of 

inability to pay costs in this court. It appears appellants also filed the affidavit in the trial court. 

The affidavit was filed in the trial court with or before the notice of appeal as required. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 20.1 (c)(1). By order dated July 21, 2015, we ordered the clerk of this court to send 

copies of the affidavit and our order to the trial court, the trial court clerk, the court reporter, and 

all parties and/or counsel. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1 (d)(2). We further ordered that anyone who 

desired to file a contest to the affidavit to file such contests in this court on or before July 31, 

2015. 

No contests were filed. Because no contests were filed, appellants were considered 

indigent for purposes of this appeal. Both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record have been 

filed in this court. Accordingly, appellants brief was originally due September 11, 2015. Neither 

the brief nor a motion for extension of time was filed. 

We therefore ORDER appellants to file, on or before October 5, 2015, their appellants=

brief and a written response reasonably explaining their failure to timely file the brief. If they 

fail to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we will dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a). 
_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 25th day of September, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), I, Wm. Stacy Locke, President and Chief Executive Officer of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation (the Company), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

(1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 (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.



|                        |  |  |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: February 1, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Wm. Stacy Locke                  
|                        |  |  |  | Wm. Stacy Locke                      
|                        |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer