alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Transcend Services, Inc., certifies that to the undersigneds knowledge, the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as amended by the
Form 10-K/A which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Transcend Services, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code.



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/    LARRY G.
GERDES                                               
|Larry G. Gerdes Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)

Date: November 5, 2009
<PAGE>




                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


                           CONSENT OF BDO SEIDMAN, LLP





                                       75

<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                                CONSENT OF
                INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




Barringer Laboratories, Inc.
Golden, Colorado



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement of our report dated April 8, 1999, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Barringer Laboratories, Inc. and subsidiaries appearing
in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
1998.



                                      /s/BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Denver, Colorado
April 14, 1999




                                   76
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Delphi Financial Group, Inc.:

      1.    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-42634) pertaining to the
            Employee Nonqualified Stock Option Plan

      2.    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-32961) pertaining to the
            Second Amended and Restated Employee Stock Option Plan

      3.    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-72614) pertaining to the
            Employee Stock Purchase Plan

      4.    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-99164) pertaining to the SIG
            Holdings, Inc. 1992 Long Term Incentive Plan

      5.    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-96293) pertaining to the
            Amended and Restated Directors Stock Option Plan

      6.    Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 33-77028 and Form S-3 No.
            333-86666) pertaining to the shelf registration of securities of
            Delphi Financial Group, Inc.

      7.    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-118052 and Form S-3 No.
            333-136661) pertaining to the registration of Class A Common Stock
            of Delphi Financial Group, Inc.

      8.    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-134563) pertaining to the
            2003 Employee Long-Term Incentive and Share Award Plan, the Second
            Amended and Restated Employee Stock Option Plan, the Second Amended
            and Restated Directors Stock Plan and the Employee Stock Purchase
            Plan.

of our reports dated February 23, 2007, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedules of Delphi Financial Group, Inc., Delphi
Financial Group, Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Delphi Financial Group, Inc., included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

                                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 26, 2007
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: THERESA CABALLERO,

Relator. '

'

'

' No. 08

- 15

- 00097

- CR

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The court has considered this cause on the Relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus

against the Honorable Sam Medrano, Judge of the 409th District Court of El Paso, Texas, and

conditionally grants relief, in accordance with the opinion of this co urt. The writ will issue only

if the trial court fails to comply with this opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
95–500 

[COMMITTEE PRINT] 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 

Policy and Supporting 

Positions 

f 

Committee on Government Reform 

U.S. House of Representatives 

108th Congress, 2d Session 

NOVEMBER 22, 2004 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Government Reform 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2004 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.01 





THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT  
WITH LIP-BU TAN
THIS THIRD AMENDMENT (this “Third Amendment”) to the Original Employment Agreement (as defined below) is made and entered into effective March 22, 2018 by and between Cadence Design Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) and LIP-BU TAN (“Executive”).  
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to that certain Employment Agreement effective January 8, 2009 (the “Original Employment Agreement”) pursuant to which Executive is employed by the Company; 
WHEREAS, the Original Employment Agreement was amended by the First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated May 13, 2009, and the Second Amendment to Employment Agreement dated March 1, 2010; and
WHEREAS, all terms capitalized but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Original Employment Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
1.Section 2.1 of the Original Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the first sentence thereof with “The Company shall pay Executive a base salary of Seven Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($725,000) per year (“Base Salary”), payable in installments in accordance with the Company’s customary payroll practices, less such deductions and withholdings required by law or authorized by Executive.”
2.    Section 2.2 of the Original Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the words and numbers “one hundred percent (100%)” with “one hundred twenty-five percent (125%).”
3.    Section 4.5(a)(2) of the Original Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the words and numbers “fifty percent (50%)” with “sixty-two and one-half percent (62.5%).” 
4.    Section 6(a)(i) of the form of Executive Transition and Release Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Original Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the numbers “100%” with “125%.”
5.    Each of the parties hereto hereby confirms that the Original Employment Agreement, except as expressly amended by the First Amendment, the Second Amendment and this Third Amendment, remains in full force and effect.


-1-





6.    This Third Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
7.    This Third Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, without regard to its conflicts of laws principles. 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this THIRD AMENDMENT on this 22nd day of March, 2018, to be effective as set forth above.


	
					
	CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC.
	 
	EXECUTIVE
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Christina R. Jones
	 
	/s/ Lip-Bu Tan
	 

	Name:
	Christina R. Jones
	 
	Lip-Bu Tan
	 

	Title:
	Senior Vice President
	 
	 
	 

	 
	Global Human Resources
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 










-2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 10-1587

__________________

In Re: DARNELL E. ROSS,

Petitioner.

__________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

__________________

Submitted: May 28, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

__________________

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

__________________

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

__________________

Darnell E. Ross, Petitioner Pro Se.

__________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and a pro se petition for writ of mandamus purportedly 

pursuant to the Crime Victim’s Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771.

The Crime Victim’s Rights Act affords to victims of crime 

the rights to receive notice of court proceedings, to be heard 

at court proceedings, to confer with government counsel, to 

receive restitution, to be free from unreasonable delay, and to 

be treated with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). The Act 

provides that these rights shall be asserted in the district 

court and that “[i]f the district court denies the relief 

sought, the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ 

of mandamus.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(3). If such a petition is 

filed, “[t]he court of appeals shall take up and decide such 

application forthwith within 72 hours after the petition has 

been filed.” Id. Furthermore, “[i]f the court of appeals 

denies the relief sought, the reasons for the denial shall be 

clearly stated on the record in a written opinion.” Id.

Petitioner Ross moves for relief from his state court 

sentence for abduction with intent to defile on the ground that 

his sentence was greater than that prescribed by the state 

legislature for this crime.
3

The statutory provision for expedited mandamus review of a 

district court’s denial of rights asserted under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3771(a) has no application to the claims asserted by Ross. 

Ross’s claims are attacks on the legality of his confinement, 

which may be raised on direct appeal in state court, in state 

post-conviction proceedings, or potentially in federal district 

court in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He has not been 

denied any rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) which could form the 

basis for a mandamus petition to this Court.

Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis as moot, and dismisses this mandamus petition.

PETITION DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS through the 

EL PASO WATER UTILITIES PUBLIC 

SERVICE BOARD,

Appellant,

v.

PASEO DEL ESTE MUNICIPAL UTILITY 

DISTRICT NO. 1,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-24-00314-CV

Appeal from the

210th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2021DCV3996)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. We further order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal and this decision be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 9, 2018

No. 04-18-00382-CV

IN RE L.J.R., a Child 

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01389

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in 

relation to this appeal because she qualifies as indigent under TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

It is so ORDERED on July 9, 2018.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 9th day of July, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 21.1
 TRIDENT MICROSYSTEMS, INC.
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of Incorporation
    
    Ownership PercentageTrident Microsystems (Far East) Ltd.
    
    Cayman Islands, B.W.I.
    
    100
%Trident Technologies, Inc.
    
    Taiwan, R.O.C.
    
    99.99
%Trident Microelectronics Ltd.
    
    Taiwan, R.O.C.
    
    100
%Trident Multimedia Technologies
(Shanghai) Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    100
%Trident Microsystems (Beijing) Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of China
    
    100
%Trident Multimedia Systems Inc.
    
    Taiwan, R.O.C.
    
    100
%Trident Microsystems Hong Kong Ltd.
    
    Hong Kong, SAR
    
    100
%Trident Microsystems (Europe) GmbH
    
    Munich, Germany
    
    100
%Trident Microsystems Nederland B.V.
    
    Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    
    100
%Trident Microsystems Holding B.V.
    
    Nijmegen, The Netherlands
    
    100
%Trident Microsystems (Korea) Limited
    
    Korea
    
    100
%Trident Microsystems (Taiwan) Ltd
    
    Taiwan, R.O.C.
    
    100
%Trident Microsystems (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
    
    Singapore
    
    100
%Trident Microsystems Japan KK
    
    Japan
    
    100
%
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 3, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Lawrence A. Denton, President, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer) and Director 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:

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

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ Lawrence A. Denton
----------------------------------------
Lawrence A. Denton
President,
Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
August 11, 2005
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Walter C. Robbins, Jr. v. Richard W. Parrott Walt Robbins, Inc. v. Richard W. Parrott

September 21, 1981

Cases No. (Law) 6867, 6868

By JUDGE ALBERT H. GRENADIER

These cases came on to be heard upon the defendant’s motion to set aside the judgments entered against him on two promissory notes by confession of judgment on July 31, 1981. The defendant claims that he has a "setoff" under the provisions of § 8.01-433 of the Code of Virginia, which entitles the Court to set aside the judgments. By the terms of the notes in question the defendant promised to pay on demand the sums stated therein ". . . without offset . ."

Based upon the language contained in the notes, the Court is of the opinion that the terms "offset" and "setoff" are synonymous. As the defendant has agreed to pay the notes "without offset" or "without setoff," he may not assert claims of setoff against the plaintiffs in these cases. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to set aside the confessed judgments is denied.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 12, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00557-CV 

SONNY SONGE YALALA, Appellant 

V. 

COLINAS POINTE APARTMENT, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-24-01492-D 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Smith, Miskel, and Breedlove 

Opinion by Justice Miskel 

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case have not 

been filed. By postcards dated May 13, 2024 and August 18, 2024, we notified 

appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee 

within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result 

in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated May 13, 2024, we informed 

appellant the docketing statement was due and directed appellant to file the 

docketing statement within ten days. By letter dated July 10, 2024, we informed 

appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for the 
 –2– 

clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide, within ten days, verification she 

(1) had either paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record, or (2) is 

entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to 

do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, 

appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided the required documentation, or 

otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

 

240557F.P05 

 

/Emily Miskel/

EMILY MISKEL 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

SONNY SONGE YALALA, 

Appellant 

No. 05-24-00557-CV V. 

COLINAS POINTE APARTMENT, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-24-01492-

D. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel. 

Justices Smith and Breedlove 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered August 12, 2024
Exhibit 99.2





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 on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 of
Closure Medical Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Benny Ward, Vice President of Finance 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:





(1)    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(a) or §78o(d)); 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/ Benny WardBenny Ward Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer November 14, 2002
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 13

- 00 268

- CV
IN RE FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO. Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice Delivered and Filed: May 8, 2013
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On April 29, 2013 , R elator Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s April 29, 2013 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

. For the fo llow ing reasons, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. First, mandamus relief is only av aila ble if the relator establishes both the trial court abused its discretion and relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 125 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Relator fails to address why it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal.

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2012

- CI

- 05517 , styled Fidelity National Title Insurance Co. v. Andrew M. Parker , pending in the 224th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Cathy Stryker presiding. However, the order complained of was signed by the Honorable Peter Sakai , presiding judge of the 225t h Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.04

- 13

- 00268

- CV

- 2

- In addition, R elator’s petition fails to comply with numerous r equirements outlined in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3 (g) (“[e]very stateme nt of fact in the petition must be supported by citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record”); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j) (“ [ t ] he person filing the petition must certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record ”); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7 (a)(2) (relator must file with the petition “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained”). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8( a ).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.0

# ANTARES PHARMA, INC.

# CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

Each
of the undersigned, Jack E. Stover and Lawrence M. Christian, the Chief Executive Officer
and the Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Antares Pharma, Inc. (the
Company), individually and not jointly has executed this Certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005
(the Report).

Each
of the undersigned hereby certifies 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.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Certification as of the 10th
day of May, 2005.

| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Jack E. Stover

Jack E. Stover
President and Chief Executive Officer
/s/ Lawrence M. Christian

Lawrence M. Christian
Vice President - Finance, Secretary and
Chief Financial Officer