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

                       THERMA-WAVE, INC. CERTIFICATION OF
         PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, L. Ray Christie, in my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of Therma-Wave,
Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Therma-Wave"), and in connection with the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by Therma-Wave with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 11, 2004 (the "Report"), 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Therma-Wave.

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 Therma-Wave and will be retained
by Therma-Wave and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certification as of the
11th day of February 2004.

                                        /s/ L. Ray Christie
                                        L. Ray Christie
                                        Vice President and Chief
                                        Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by Therma-Wave as
part of the report or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section
18 or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10741

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

ENRIQUE GAMINO-PEREZ,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 4:13-CR-12-4

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Enrique Gamino-Perez appeals the denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10741 Document: 00514786705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2019
§ 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence for possession with intent to distribute a 

controlled substance. Gamino-Perez sought a modification of his sentence

based on Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

“This court reviews a district court’s decision whether to reduce a 

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion, its interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its findings of fact for clear error.” 

United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Gamino-Perez has failed to show that the court abused its discretion by 

concluding that Amendment 794 is not retroactively applicable and denying 

§ 3582(c)(2) relief. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010); 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d), p.s. Gamino-Perez’s theory that Amendment 794 is a 

clarifying amendment and therefore can be applied retroactively is unavailing. 

See United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 217−18 (5th Cir. 1996) (“Only on direct 

appeal, however, have we considered the effect of such a ‘clarifying’ amendment not in effect at the time the offense was committed.”); see also United

States v. Sanchez-Villareal, 857 F.3d 714, 719−21 (5th Cir. 2017). 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 18-10741 Document: 00514786705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2019
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 Electronic Control Security Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1. The Report 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 operation of the Company.



       SIGNATURE                      TITLE                      DATE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Arthur Barchenko       President, Chief Executive     September 27, 2006
------------------------   Officer (Principal Financial
Arthur Barchenko           Officer and  Accounting Officer



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 with 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.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 March 9 , 2018

Order 

Clerk

March 9, 2018

155498(53)

NORTH AMERICAN BROKERS, LLC,

and MARK RATLIFF,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

SC: 155498

v COA: 330126

Livingston CC: 15-028669-CH

HOWELL PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant-Appellant, 

and

ST. JOHN PROVIDENCE,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Realtors to file a brief 

amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on March 7, 2018, is accepted 

for filing.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Carl Spana, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Palatin Technologies,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:  September 13, 2004

/s/  Carl Spana
Carl Spana, Chief Executive Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 3055 2 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DANIELLE COLLINS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 125

- 7

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Danielle Collins appeals the 188

- month sentence imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He asserts that the district court erred in denying a reduction in his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility. We review the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility with greater deference than clear error review and will not reverse unless the district court’s decision was witho ut foundation.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 16, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-30552 Document: 00514390428 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2018No. 17

- 3055 2

2 See United States v. Juarez

- Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Buchanan , 485 F.3d 274, 287 (5th Cir. 2007). The presentence report (PSR) recommended against a § 3E1.1 reduction on the basis that Collins was arrested and charged with a new criminal offense after pleading guilty in this case. Collins failed to rebut the facts in the PSR,
and the district court properly relied on the undisputed finding as to Collins’s post

- plea cri minal conduct. See United States v. Parker , 133 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir. 1998). In light of that finding, the district court did not err in denying Collins a
reduction under § 3E1.1. S ection 3E1.1 provides that a district court deciding whether to gran t a reduction should consider as a factor whether the defendant voluntarily ended or withdrew from criminal conduct , even if the conduct is not related to the offense of conviction . § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(B)) (2015) ; United States v. Rickett , 8 9 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Watkins , 911 F.2d 983, 985 (5th Cir. 1990)

. Because the uncontested record reflected that Collins did not withdraw from criminal conduct, t he district court’s refusal
to award a reduction under § 3 E 1.1 was not without foundation. S ee Juarez

Duarte , 513 F.3d at 211. Finally, to the extent Collins’s plea agreement obligated the Government to move for a § 3E1.1 reduction, Collins’s appellate brief fails adequately to argue that the Government breached the agreeme nt. Collins thereby waived that argument. See United States v. Scroggins , 599 F.3d 433, 446

– 47 (5th Cir. 2010). AFFIRMED. Case: 17-30552 Document: 00514390428 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         $10,874
<SECURITIES>                                   204,734
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,638
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               290,224
<PP&E>                                          38,704
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,091
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                $354,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         $136,556
<BONDS>                                            194
<COMMON>                                           466
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     216,750
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  $354,182
<SALES>                                             $0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               955,395
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  859,055
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    47
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,010
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 96,340
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,216
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             61,124
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   $61,124
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $1.28
        

</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 11 - 00219 - CV

GUARDIANSHIP OF JOHN DAVID HARRIS, AN INCAPACIT ATED PERSON

----------

FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- On Jun e 2 0 , 2011, we received Appellant’s “Notice of Restricted Appeal” appealing the trial court’s December 29, 2010 order appointing a temporary guardian ad litem for Appellant’s father. Appellant’s father passed away, and on February 20, 2011, the trial cour t dismissed the guardianship investigation. We sent Appellant a letter on June 28, 2011, notifying Appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because it appeared that he was

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

attempting to appeal an unappealable order. Specifica lly, the order appointing the guardian ad litem did not appear to be a final judgment or an a ppealable interlocutory order. On July 11, 2011, we received a response from Appellant. That same day, we sent another letter to Appellant expressing our concern that any complaint regarding the temporary guardian is now moot because the case has been dismissed. See, e.g. , Hamilton County v. Cooper , No. 05

- 07

- 00307

- CV, 2007 WL 2774166, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Sept. 25, 2007, no pet.) (dismissing an appeal from a t emporary injunction as moot after trial court rendered a final judgment in the case). We notified Appellant that we would dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing gro unds for continuing the appeal. On July 22, 2011, we received a response from Appellant. However, Appellant’s response does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant complains of various acts by the temporary gu ardian ad litem regarding the estate of Appellant’s father, and he argues that these acts constitute a continuing controversy between the parties. Any such controversy between the parties does not, however, flow from the propriety of the temporary guardia n’s appointment. Further, Appellant does not explain how a judgment from this court could remedy what harm Appellant claims to suffer. See In re Smith , No. 05

- 09

- 00913

- CV, 2010 WL 4324434, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Nov. 3, 2010, orig.3

proceeding) (mem. op. ). We therefore dismiss this appeal as moot

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J. ; LIVINGSTON, C.J. ; and DAUPHINOT , J. DELIVERED: August 18, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2174

JIN BIN CHEN,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A77-993-955)

Submitted: May 4, 2005 Decided: May 20, 2005

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Douglas B. Payne, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. McConnell, Deputy

Director, Kurt B. Larson, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jin Bin Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s

Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (Board) order denying his motion for reconsideration of

the Board’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

It is undisputed that Chen’s motion to reopen was

untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (2004). However, under 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2004), the Board has authority to reopen or

reconsider a case in which it issued a final decision on its own

motion at any time. Chen seeks review of the Board’s decision

declining to sua sponte exercise its authority under 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(a) (2004) to reopen or reconsider his case. We find that

this court is without jurisdiction to review this claim. See

Belay-Gebru v. INS, 327 F.3d 998, 1000-01 (10th Cir. 2003);

Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 474-75 (3d Cir. 2003);

Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002); Luis v. INS,

196 F.3d 36, 40-41 (1st Cir. 1999); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S.

821, 831-33 (1985).

We also note that Chen’s attacks to the underlying

decision of the immigration judge, as affirmed by the Board without

opinion, are not properly before the court because he did not file

a timely petition for review of the Board’s decision. See 8 U.S.C.
- 3 -

§ 1252(b)(1) (2000); Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995) (noting

the time limit is “mandatory and jurisdictional”).

Accordingly, we deny Chen’s petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This article contains summary information extracted from the nine months ended
November 30, 1999 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000827830
<NAME>                        Neal Ludeke
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         1,148,673
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,482,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          188,647
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,294,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,482,954
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               38,499
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  20,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   159,481
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
EX-10.1 AMENDMENT 2006-1 TO STOCK OPTION PLAN



 







EXHIBIT 10.1




AMENDMENT 2006.1

ASSURANCEAMERICA CORPORATION STOCK OPTION PLAN




     The AssuranceAmerica Corporation Stock Option Plan is hereby amended as follows:




	 	1.	 	Article 3.1 of the AssuranceAmerica Corporation Stock Option Plan is deleted and
replaced in its entirety with the following:
	 
	 		 	3.1 Number of Shares. The number of Shares for which Options may be granted under the PLAN
shall be 7,500,000. Such shares may be authorized but unissued Shares, reacquired shares,
or any combination thereof.
	 
	 	2.	 	All other terms of the Plan remain unchanged.