alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
23.2




Consent
Of Independent Certified Public Accountants




We
consent to the use in the Registration Statement on form S-1(for the
registration of 8,338,866 shares of common stock) and related Prospectus, and in
the Registration Statement on form S-8 (file No. 333-165050) of OCZ Technology
Group, Inc. and in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of OCZ Technology Group, Inc.
for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2010, of our report dated May 1, 2009 (in
respect of the fiscal years ended February 29, 2008 and February 28, 2009) on
the consolidated financial statements of OCZ Technology Group, Inc. We also
consent to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in the
prospectus.




Horwath
Clark Whitehill LLP





London,
England


May 20,
2010
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2023              

#   Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal Year 2023

##           Downloads        

FY23%20Performance%20and%20Accountability%20Report_15NOV2023_pdf_signed_1.pdf

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000803058
<NAME>                        TOTAL RESEARCH CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                         5,203,383
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,178,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                     110,000
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              16,435,114
<PP&E>                                         7,162,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,553,729
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                21,716,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         11,921,255
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          11,762
<OTHER-SE>                                     9,067,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  21,716,729
<SALES>                                       41,561,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              41,561,835
<CGS>                                         20,450,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 38,571,740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (230,462)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,220,557
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,244,820
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,975,737
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,975,737
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .16


</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LINQUET TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TILE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-2150

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 3:20-cv-05153-JD, 

Judge James Donato.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Linquet Technologies, Inc. moves to voluntarily dismiss this appeal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 42(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The court generally does not specify whether a dismissal of an appeal is with prejudice.

Upon consideration thereof, 

Case: 22-2150 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 11/01/2022
2 LINQUET TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. TILE, INC.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted to the extent that the appeal 

is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

November 1, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 1, 2022

Case: 22-2150 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 11/01/2022
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 04, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 04, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0528. HAROLD B. MASON v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

15CV025
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO. 2-04-374-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

		V.

RICHARD CHARLES CAMP	     						  APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 4 OF DENTON COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered the “State’s Motion To Dismiss Appeal And Issue Mandate.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.  See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).  As agreed by the parties, the mandate will issue immediately.  See Tex. R. App. P. 18.1(c).	

	It is further ordered that the State shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(f) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. 

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 2, 2004
EXHIBIT 32.01



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 Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as submitted for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas V. Brown, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
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 result of operations of
the Company.



Date: August 12, 2003



| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Caraustar Industries, Inc. and will be retained by Caraustar Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.0

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
Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as added by 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 as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |  |  |                                     
|---------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------
|November 5, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ David T. Blair                  
|                 |  |  |  | David T. Blair                      
|                 |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
|                 |  | 
|                 |  |  |  | /s/ Hai V. Tran                     
|                 |  |  |  | Hai V. Tran                         
|                 |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JOHNNY COLLINS,

Appellant

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 89 MAP 2016

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court dated,

August 8, 2016 at No. 330 MD 2016.

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: March 28, 2017

AND NOW, this 28th day of March, 2017, we AFFIRM the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3256 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3256

    To prohibit Federal funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2021

  Mr. Perry (for himself, Mr. Mast, Mr. Posey, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. 
 Gohmert, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Duncan, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. 
   Gosar, Mr. Steube, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Cawthorn, Mr. Van Drew, and Mr. 
   Jackson) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit Federal funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defund the Wuhan Institute of 
Virology Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING TO THE WUHAN INSTITUTE OF 
              VIROLOGY.

    (a) In General.--No funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law 
may be made available for any purpose to the Wuhan Institute of 
Virology.
    (b) GAO Study and Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 
shall conduct a study, and submit to Congress a report, on the amount 
of Federal funds awarded or indirectly given to Wuhan Institute of 
Virology or researchers affiliated with Wuhan Institute of Virology, 
during the 15-year period preceding such date of enactment were 
provided, whether purposely or inadvertently, to the People's Republic 
of China, Chinese Communist Party, or the Wuhan Institute of Virology, 
or any agency or instrumentality thereof.
                                 <all>
```
#### Johnny Ray WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN,* Director, AZ Department of Corrections and State of Arizona Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 08-17039.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2010.**

Filed Dec. 13, 2010.

*243David Eisenberg, I, Esquire, David Eisenberg, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Johnny Ray Washington, Buckeye, AZ, pro se.

Joseph Thomas Maziarz, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Charles L. Ryan is substituted for his predecessor, Dora B. Schriro, as Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Arizona state prisoner Johnny Ray Washington appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), and we affirm.

Washington contends that the prosecutor in his first trial intended to provoke the defense into moving for a mistrial and that, consequently, his retrial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment. Washington’s contention is not supported by the record. Accordingly, the state court’s decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law, or an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); *see also Oregon v. Kennedy,*456 U.S. 667, 676, 102 S.Ct. 2083, 72 L.Ed.2d 416 (1982) (“[o]nly where the governmental conduct in question is intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion”).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### BANNER INDUSTRIES OF N.E., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth L. WICKS, Harrington Industrial Plastics LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-4647-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 25, 2016.

Seth H. Hochbaum, Regnante, Sterio *&*Osborne LLP, Wakefield, MA, for Appellant.

Andrew Marks, Littler Mendelson, P.C. (Stephen T. Melnick, on the brief), New York, NY, for Appellees.

Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, PETER W. HALL, and SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Banner Industries of N.E., Inc. appeals from the December 1, 2014 memorandum-decision and order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, *J.)*granting the motion for summary judgment made by Kenneth L. Wicks and Harrington Industrial Plastics, LLC. *Banner Industries of N.E., Inc. v. Wicks,*71 F.Supp.3d 284 (N.D.N.Y.2014). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

We affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion. In order for a party to succeed on a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, the party must show “(1) that it possessed a trade secret and (2) that the defendants used that trade secret in breach of an agreement, [a] confidential relationship or duty, or as a result of discovery by improper means.” *N. Atl. Instruments, Inc. v. Haber,*188 F.3d 38, 43-44 (2d Cir.1999) (citing *Hudson Hotels Corp. v. Choice Hotels Int’l,*995 F.2d 1173, 1176 (2d Cir.1993) (abrogated on other grounds)). Banner argues that the record contains sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a fact finder can infer that Wicks misappropriated Banner’s confidential information. The district court properly determined that Banner failed to raise *80a question of material fact on this issue. The fact that Wicks had information belonging to Banner does not give rise to an inference that Wicks misappropriated the information, because even assuming Wicks possessed Banner’s trade secrets, nothing in the record supports an inference that Wicks used those trade secrets.

Further, the district court properly declined to enforce the' restrictive covenant as overbroad. As a general rule, “New York courts disfavor restrictive covenants in the employment context and will generally enforce them only to the extent they are reasonable and necessary to protect valid business interests.” *Lucente v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp.,*310 F.3d 243, 254 (2d Cir.2002). (citing *BDO Seidman v. Hirshberg,*93 N.Y.2d 382, 388, 690 N.Y.S.2d 854, 712 N.E.2d 1220 (1999)). New York “require[s] restrictive covenants to be reasonably limited in time, scope and geographical area, and to be grounded in a legitimate business purpose.” *Brown & Brown, Inc. v. Johnson,*25 N.Y.3d 364, 369, 12 N.Y.S.3d 606, 34 N.E.3d 357 (2015). We find no error with the district court’s analysis.

We have considered the remainder of Banner’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the order of the district court hereby is AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 I, Richard C. Pfenniger, Jr., hereby 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 accompanying annual report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2)
    The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of Continucare Corporation. Date:
May 23, 2005
    
    By: /s/ Richard C. Pfenniger, Jr.RICHARD C. PFENNIGER, JR.President and Chief Executive Officer
 1
74 A.3d 116

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent v. Matthew Allen CHESTER, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 27, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 27th day of August, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Whether offenses which are not *specifically*enumerated by the General Assembly as offenses which disqualify defendants from eligibility under [the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Act (“RRRI Act”),’ 61 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 4501, *et seq.]*may otherwise form the basis of denial of eligibility pursuant to the general eligibility requirement that a defendant does not demonstrate “a history of present or past violent behavior,” rendering an offender ineligible? Restated in the context of the specific facts of this case, the precise question presented is: Whether a prior conviction of a felony one burglary, which is not included as a disqualifier in the definition of “eligible *112offender” may nevertheless amount to “a history of present or past violent behavior” such as to exclude a defendant from RRRI [Act] eligibility?
#### Juan CALDERON, Petitioner-Appellant v. State of FLORIDA; Bill McCollum, State Attorney General; Dava J. Tums, Circuit Judge, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 10-60455

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 23, 2010.

Juan Calderon, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

*898PER CURIAM: *

Juan Calderon, federal prisoner # 38672-060, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his petition invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The district court recharacterized Calderon’s petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus because Calderon was requesting that the district court issue an order directing a Florida state court in- the performance of its duties. Because Calderon did not challenge the manner in which his federal sentence was being executed, the district court did not err in recharacterizing Calderon’s § 2241 petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus. *See Warren v. Miles,*230 F.3d 688, 694 (5th Cir.2000) (“Section 2241 ... is the proper habeas remedy for challenging the execution of a sentence.”). Nor did the district court err in dismissing it. *See Moye v. Clerk, De Kalb County Superior Court,*474 F.2d 1275, 1275-76 (5th Cir.1973) (“[A] federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought.”).

Calderon’s request that we vacate and remand for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. To the extent that Calderon requests mandamus relief from this court, the request also is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.