alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Crim. No. 11-366 (JLL)

V.

JOHN ALFY SALAMA MARKUS,

a/k/a “John Salama,” : PROTECTIVE ORDER ON CONSENT

a/k/a “John Alfy Salama”

This application having been opened to the Court by the

United States Attorney (Sandra L. Moser, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

appearing) under Rule 16(d) (1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure for a protective order limiting the disclosure of the

contents of a recorded telephone conversation marked “10/28/10

Recorded Call” that has been or will be made available to counsel

for defendant John Alfy Salama Markus (Michael Rogers, ESq.,

appearing), and the Court, having the consent of the parties, and

for good cause shown,

IT IS on this day of 2012,

ORDERED that:

1. The disc containing the recorded telephone conversation

shall not be disclosed to anyone other than the

defendant, the defendant’s counsel, and any agent

working at the direction of defense counsel in this

matter;

2. Notwithstanding any other provision, the defense shall

be permitted to disclose any materials provided in

Paragraph 1 in connection with the filing of the

Case 2:11-cr-00366-JLL Document 45 Filed 08/01/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 326
defendant’s motions with the Court, or for use at

trial, subject to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41.1; and

3. If there is a need prior to trial or during trial to

disclose the disc containing the recorded telephone

conversation beyond that permitted by this Order, then

the defendant will make an application to the Court

upon notice to the government, requesting

authorization.

HOJiABLE JOSE L. LINARES

UED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cr-00366-JLL Document 45 Filed 08/01/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 327
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CHANCELLOR FRAGOSO,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00182-CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20160D01962)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Court Reporter’s third request for an extension of time within

which to file the Reporter’s Record until February 6, 2023. NO FURTHER REQUESTS

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WILL BE

CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Evangelina Morales, Court Reporter for the Criminal District 

Court No. 1 for El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter’s Record for the above styled and 

Numbered cause and forward the same to this Court on or before February 6, 2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2023.

 PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
#### Edwin COLON-RIVERA, Claimant-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2012-7110.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 12, 2013.

Kenneth M. Carpenter, Carpenter, Chartered, of Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

K. Elizabeth Witwer, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. With her on the brief were Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were David J. Barrans, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Amanda R. Black-mon, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

Before MOORE, CLEVENGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Edwin Colon-Rivera appeals from the final decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). The CAVC upheld the finding by the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) that the Department of Veterans Administration (VA) satisfied its duty to assist Mr. Colon-Rivera in developing his claim. *See*38 U.S.C. § 5103A. Mr. Colon-Rivera challenges that finding on appeal. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over Mr. Colon-Rivera’s appeal.

Our jurisdiction over CAVC appeals is strictly limited by statute. We have jurisdiction over “all relevant questions of law, including interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). We lack jurisdiction, however, over any “challenge to a factual determination” or “challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case” absent a constitutional issue. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2).

A determination that the VA satisfied its duty to assist in a particular case is generally a finding of fact. *See DeLaRosa v. Peake, 515*F.3d 1319, 1322 (Fed.Cir.2008); *Garrison v. Nicholson,*494 F.3d 1366, 1370 *984(Fed.Cir.2007). Here, the Board found that the VA satisfied its duty to assist and that “additional development efforts would serve no useful purpose.” J.A. 148. The CAVC upheld this finding. J.A. 5. In light of this decision, we need not address the issue of waiver. We thus lack jurisdiction over Mr. Colon-Rivera’s appeal.

DISMISSED
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 2167
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 2 of 16 PageID: 2168
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 3 of 16 PageID: 2169
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 4 of 16 PageID: 2170
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 5 of 16 PageID: 2171
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 6 of 16 PageID: 2172
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 7 of 16 PageID: 2173
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 8 of 16 PageID: 2174
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 9 of 16 PageID: 2175
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 10 of 16 PageID: 2176
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 11 of 16 PageID: 2177
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 12 of 16 PageID: 2178
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 13 of 16 PageID: 2179
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 14 of 16 PageID: 2180
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 15 of 16 PageID: 2181
Case 1:08-cr-00629-JBS Document 148 Filed 11/13/09 Page 16 of 16 PageID: 2182
Case 2:11-cv-03419-SRC Document 14 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 67
Case 2:11-cv-03419-SRC Document 14 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 68
Case 2:11-cv-03419-SRC Document 14 Filed 05/07/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 69
Case 2:11-cv-03419-SRC Document 14 Filed 05/07/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 70
#### Laurentino Rodrigues, Appellant, v Frank Occhipinti, Respondent.

[856 NYS2d 149]

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for costs against the plaintiff for engaging in frivolous conduct. Conduct is frivolous if “it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]). Inasmuch as the plaintiff admitted that after commencing the action he no longer wanted to pursue it and took no steps to discontinue the action, awarding costs to the defendant to reimburse him for actual expenses and attorney’s fees reasonably incurred to defend against and to obtain dismissal of the action was proper *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]; *Moran v Regency Sav. Bank, F.S.B.,*20 AD3d 305, 306-307 [2005]; *Timoney v Newmark & Co. Real Estate,*299 AD2d 201, 202 [2002]; *Janitschek v Trustees of Friends World Coll.,*249 AD2d 368, 369 [1998]; *cf. Juron & Minzner v State Farm Ins. Co.,*303 AD2d 463 [2003]).

Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly articulated the basis for its determination pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.2.

*709The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.E, Santucci, Covello, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2021 ND 69

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Douglas Landis, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20200323

Appeal from the District Court of Mountrail County, North Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable Richard L. Hagar, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Wade G. Enget, State’s Attorney, Stanley, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, N.D., for defendant and appellant.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

APRIL 20, 2021 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

State v. Landis

No. 20200323

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Douglas Landis appeals a district court criminal judgment following a 

jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of negligent homicide. We 

summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

[¶2] In the early morning hours of October 5, 2018, Landis was involved in a 

head-on collision that resulted in the death of two individuals. Landis’s time 

card from the day prior stated that he had started work at 2:00 a.m. and ended 

work at 2:00 p.m. Business records, including bills of lading, showed that 

Landis continued to pick up and deliver frac-sand past 2:00 p.m. These records 

showed that Landis had been working 24 out of 28 and 1/2 hours prior to the 

crash. Trooper Preston Langer responded to the scene of the crash and testified 

that the further east he traveled, the conditions appeared to be deteriorating, 

with snow beginning to accumulate on the roadway. The State presented dash 

camera audio and video of a conversation that occurred between Trooper 

Langer and Landis, with Landis admitting that he could not see the center line 

and felt the truck drifting into the oncoming lane. Trooper Christa Kovarik 

testified as an expert for purposes of crash reconstruction and gave her opinion 

that the point of impact was delineated by gouge marks on the pavement 

located on the fog line of the eastbound lane. At the close of the State’s case, 

Landis moved under Rule 29, N.D.R.Crim.P., for a judgment of acquittal. The 

district court denied the motion.

[¶3] On appeal, Landis argues the district court abused its discretion in 

denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal. We conclude that the verdict is 

supported by substantial evidence, and we summarily affirm under 

N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16976]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER98-4512-007; ER08-1164-002]


Consolidated Water Power Company; Escanaba Paper Company; Notice 
of Filing

July 10, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 30, 2009, Consolidated Water Power Company 
and Escanaba Paper Company, tendered for filing their updated market 
power analysis and revised tariff sheets.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#01474453424e6f6d686f64527471716e737541676473622f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f292a3d2c20010306010a3c1a1f1f001d1b2f090a1d0c41080019">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 21, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16976 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

CITY SELECT AUTO SALES, INC., 

a New Jersey corporation, 

individually and as the 

representative of a class of 

similarly situated persons, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DAVID/RANDALL ASSOCIATES, INC. 

and RAYMOND MILEY, III, 

 Defendants. 

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE 

Civil Action 

No. 11-2658 (JBS/KMW) 

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court by way of Plaintiff City 

Select Auto Sales, Inc.’s (hereinafter, “City Select”) motion 

regarding the schedule for the remainder of this Class Action 

[Docket Item 156]; and the Court having considered the parties’ 

submissions; and for the reasons explained in the Memorandum 

Opinion of today’s date; and for good cause shown; 

IT IS this 26th day of October , 2015, hereby 

ORDERED that City Select’s motion regarding a proposed 

schedule for the remainder of this Class Action [Docket Item 

156] shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART; and it is further 

ORDERED that City Select’s request to certify the Court’s 

March 27, 2015 judgment in favor of the Plaintiff Class and 

against David/Randall Associates, Inc. as final pursuant to Rule 

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 166 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 8409
2

54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., shall be, and hereby is, DENIED; and it 

is further 

ORDERED that notice to the Plaintiff of the Court’s March 

27, 2015 Judgment and briefing on any application for attorneys’ 

fees shall be, and hereby are, STAYED and DEFERRED until further 

Order of the Court; and it is further 

ORDERED that the parties shall appear, as directed, before 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams for a final 

pretrial/settlement conference in relation to the individual 

liability claim against Defendant Raymond Miley, III, which will 

be set for trial within 90 days of today’s date. 

 s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

JEROME B. SIMANDLE 

 Chief U.S. District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02658-JBS-KMW Document 166 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 8410
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 11-20881

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff 

### ! Appellee
v. JORGE CABECERA RODRIGUEZ, also known as Jorge Cebecera, also known as Jorge Paul Cabecera, also known as Jorge P. Cabecera, Defendant 

### ! Appellant

__________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

__________________________ ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion October 3, 2012, 5 Cir., 2012, 689 F.3d 220) Before STEWART, Chief Judge, KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in favor, It is ordered that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc without oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 29, 2012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk
EXHIBIT
      32.1





SPRING
      CREEK CAPITAL CORPORATION


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Jagjit
      Jay Sidhu, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Creek
      Capital Corporation
      (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002,
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
            the
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal period
                endedSeptember
                30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
                13(a)
                or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
                78o(d));and





(2)
            the
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects,
                the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to Creek Capital Corporation and will be retained by Creek Capital Corporation
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





By:
        /s/ Jagjit Jay Sidhu
 Jagjit
          Jay Sidhu
 
 Date:
        February 7, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

UNITED STATES v. BRIHEEM NERO: CRIMINAL NO.: 11-CR-405 

PETITION FOR 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

(X) Ad Prosequendum ( ) Ad Testificandurn 

1. BRIHEEM NERO, SBI# 218095C; FBI# 966964CB4 DOB: 3-3-1980: (hereinafter the 

"Detainee") is no\v confined at the: 

PASSAIC COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

2. The Detainee is charged in this District by: ( X ) Indictment ( ) Information ( ) Complaint 

with a violation of, Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g). 

3. The Detainee will be returned to the custody of the detaining facility upon termination of 

proceedings. 

4. The Detainee will be required at the U.S. POST OFFICE & COURTHOUSE, FEDERAL 

SQUARE, COURTROOM #5, NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, before the l-Ion. Katharine S. 

Hayden, U.S.D.J., on THURSDAY, JULY 12TH at 9:00a.m., for STATUS CONFERENCE 

in the above-captioned case. A Writ of Habeas Corpus should issue for that purpose. 

DATED: July 6, 2012 Pvta~f?~. Fabiana Pierre-Louis 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Petitioner 

Case 2:11-cr-00405-KSH Document 17 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 34
ORDER 

Let the wnt rsre. 

DATED: 7

10 (z_/ 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

The United States of America to Warden of the PASSAIC COUNTY CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY: 

WE COMMAND YOU that you have the body of 

BRIHEEM NERO 

now confined at the PASSAIC COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACULTY, brought before the 

United States District Court, the Hon. Katharine S. Hayden, U.S. District Judge, U.S. POST 

OFFICE & COURTHOUSE, FEDERAL SQUARE, Courtroom #5, NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 

on THURSDAY, JULY 12TH at 9:00a.m., for STATUS CONFERENCE in the abovecaptioned matter. 

Immediately upon completion of the pro~eedings, the Detainee will be returned to said place of 

confinement in safe and secure conduct. 

DATED: 

WITNESS the Honorable Katharine S. Hayden 

United States District Judge 

Newark, New Jersey. 

Case 2:11-cr-00405-KSH Document 17 Filed 07/09/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 35
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

138508 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138508 

 COA: 282691 

Emmet CC: 07-002795-FH 

JAMES DOUGLAS HARRIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 27, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Case 2:11-cv-04287-KM-SCM Document 90-3 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2774
Case 2:11-cv-04287-KM-SCM Document 90-3 Filed 09/18/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2775
Exhibit 32.2

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 Ben Franklin Financial, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Glen A. Miller, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (2) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (3) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 14, 2007



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Glen A. Miller                        
|Glen A. Miller                            
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:06-cr-00935-PGS Document 37 Filed 08/26/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 154
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 Annual Report of Dendreon Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:



(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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date: March 16, 2005



/s/    MITCHELL H. GOLD,
M.D.Name: Title:

Mitchell H. Gold, M.D. President and Chief Executive Officer




/s/    MARTIN A.
SIMONETTIName: Title:

Martin A. Simonetti Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Faraj Aalaei, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Centillium Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/    FARAJ
AALAEIFaraj Aalaei Chief Executive Officer




April 18, 2003