alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification**

I, William P.Lyons, certify that:

1.                I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AXS-One Inc.;

2.                Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)    Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(c)    Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)   Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)    All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: August 13, 2004 |   | /s/ William P. Lyons                                |
|----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   | William P. Lyons                                    |
|                       |   | *Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board* |

 

 

----
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No s . 06

- 17

- 00071

- CR , 06

- 17

- 00072

- CR &

06

- 17

- 00073

- CR

CHRISTOPHER DALE JONES, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th District Court

Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No s . 31461 , 31462 & 31463

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O R D E R The clerk’s records in these appeals were filed May 24 2017, and the reporter’s records were filed July 27, 2017, making the appellant’s brief originally due August 28, 2017

. This Court extended that briefing deadline twice, on Jones’ motions, resulting in the most recent due date of
October 18 , 2017. We informed counsel when we granted the last extension request that further requests for extension of time would not be granted; nonetheless, counsel has filed a third motion seeking an additional thirty days to file Jones’ brief.
We have reviewed c ounsel ’s most recent motion to extend time and find no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant an additional thirty

- day extension of the filing deadline. We have also reviewed the case file and record on appeal. In light of the fact that this brie f was originally due three months ago and because the brief has actually been completed, the reasons offered by counsel in his motion are not compelling enough to justify another extension of the briefing deadline. The motion to extend time to file Jones’ appellate brief is denied. W e hereby order counsel to file Jones’ appellate brief with this Court on or before October 30 , 201 7

. IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT
Date: October 2 4 , 2017
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 142 (Tuesday, July 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 35052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15829]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2018-0526]


Corrections to Previous Notice Regarding Supplemental Guidance on 
the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) for Fiscal Years 2018-2020

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On July 9, 2018, the FAA published a Federal Register notice 
announcing the process for eligible airport sponsors in two categories 
to notify the FAA of any supplemental discretionary funding requests. 
This notice addresses two omissions, one correction and one update.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elliott Black, Director, Office of 
Airport Planning and Programming, APP-1, at (202) 267-8775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The July 9, 2018 notice required airport 
sponsors to submit specific information via electronic mail (email) in 
order to request supplemental funding. In addition to the original 
requirements, for each request, the submission must also identify the 
total capital cost of the proposed project and the amount of funding 
being requested.
    In addition, the FAA is developing an optional form that may make 
it easier for airports to ensure they provide all required information. 
The FAA will post the form online at https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_supplemental_appropriation/. Accordingly, airports may still submit 
their requests via electronic mail (email) as stated in the original 
Federal Register notice, or they may complete the optional form and 
transmit it via email. In addition, the FAA may eventually develop a 
web-based electronic portal for submission of requests. If this 
happens, then the FAA will post an announcement on the same website, 
which now also supports automated notifications regarding updates for 
users who choose to subscribe to the website.
    Finally, in the July 9 notice, footnotes #6, 7 and 9 incorrectly 
referred to footnote #4.
    They should have referred instead to footnote #5.
    All other information, including submission requirements, 
evaluation criteria and deadlines remain unchanged from the original 
July 9 notice.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 18, 2018.
Elliott Black,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming, Federal Aviation 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-15829 Filed 7-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
# C_2022171EN.01003602.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/36

---

Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko v Commission

(Case T-295/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Financial provisions - EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 171/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSlovensko (Lučenec, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2021) 1955613 of 18 March 2021 concerning a recovery order for project SI 2010 SIC 1231002 (‘Safer Internet SK SIC’).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | eSlovensko shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

eSlovensko shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAEMAR POWELL,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 398 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of March, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### Harry GLOVER d/b/a Glover’s Roofing Contractor, Appellant, v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-964.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 12, 1972.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; William Clayton Johnson, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Joseph GORDON, Trustee for Gordon Enterprises, d/b/a Parkview Point Apartments, Petitioner, v. Milton M. BECK, Respondent.

No. 41027.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Joel EAVES, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.

No. 46699.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 15, 1972.

Binder, Bush, Tharpe & Lorhmann, Jackson, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by John M. Kinard, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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



The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 9, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Dated: June 14, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Roger M. Laverty                 
|                     |  |  |  | Roger M. Laverty                     
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



Note: A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### CUSTOM HOME BUILDERS, INC., Appellant, v. William L. BAILEY, Appellee.

No. EE-469.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 25, 1977.

C. Ray Greene, Jr. of Greene & Greene and Stanley B. Gelman, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Joseph M. Glickstein, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have considered the record, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. We find no reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to allow the jury a view of the residence, in that no motion requesting the view was made by counsel. We likewise find no error in the court’s refusal to give .the requested instruction. *See*Committee Note 1 of Standard Jury Instruction Number 2.2. Moreover, the court’s disallowance of part of Appellee’s expert witnesses’ fees was not an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM DIEDRICH
COFFEE, INC. UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THIRTY-NINE WEEKS ENDED AND
AS OF OCTOBER 30, 1996 CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FOR THE THIRD QUARTER OF FISCAL 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1996
<CASH>                                       5,113,553
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  189,863
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,454,143
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,208,571
<PP&E>                                      12,458,428
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,512,680
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,256,910
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,984,245
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,014,099
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,256,910
<SALES>                                     14,046,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,046,778
<CGS>                                        6,005,203
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,005,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,668,203
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             186,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                261,709
<INCOME-TAX>                                   103,319
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            158,390
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   158,390
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Officer Certificationunder 18 USC 1350**

 

We, the undersigned ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of AXS-One Inc. (the “issuer”),do hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, and that the information contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the issuer.

 

 
|                                  | AXS-ONE INC. |                                                     |
|---------------------------------------|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |         |                                                     |
|                                  |         |                                                     |
| **Date:  **August  14, 2003 | By:          | /s/ John A.  Rade                                        |   |   |
|                                  |         | John A. Rade                                             |   |   |
|                                  |         | Chief  Executive Officer,  President and Director        |   |   |
|                                  |         |                                                     |   |   |
|                                  |         |                                                     |   |   |
|                                  | By:          | /s/ William  G. Levering III                             |   |   |   |
|                                  |         | William G.  Levering III                                 |   |   |
|                                  |         | Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer,  and Treasurer |   |   |
|                                       |              |                                                          |  |  |  |  |

 

----
#### Victor VENOS, Appellant, v. Jean VENOS, Appellee.

No. 71-142.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 3, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2

MANAGEMENTS REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

Barricks management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control over financial reporting.

Barricks management assessed the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2016.
Barricks Management used the Internal Control  Integrated Framework (2013) as issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) to evaluate the effectiveness of Barricks internal control
over financial reporting. Based on managements assessment, Barricks internal control over financial reporting is effective as at December 31, 2016.

The effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2016 has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants, as stated in their report which is located on pages 96-98 of Barricks 2016 Annual Financial Statements.















|                      |  |    |  |                                                                 
|--------------------- |  | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|BARRICK YEAR-END 2016 |  | 95 |  | MANAGEMENTS REPORT ON INTERNAL
CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                         177,083
<SECURITIES>                                   830,084
<RECEIVABLES>                                  294,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (47,921)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,562
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,435,700
<PP&E>                                         695,557
<DEPRECIATION>                               (349,361)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,924,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          414,695
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,759
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,459,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,924,112
<SALES>                                      1,083,887
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,083,887
<CGS>                                          238,649
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  238,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               746,792
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                141,634
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,658
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            101,976
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   101,976
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>
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 on Form 10-Q, filed pursuant to Section
13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, of The First
Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, DeeDee Lowery, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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) orSection
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and





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





/s/
      DeeDee LoweryName:
            DeeDee
      LoweryTitle:
            Executive
      Vice President andChief
      Financial
      OfficerDate:
            November
      12, 2010




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The First Bancshares,
Inc., and will be retained by The First Bancshares, Inc., and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Robert Wayne HIGGINBOTHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-679.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 15, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Oak R. Ryo et al., Plaintiffs, v Frank Minerva, Defendant. (Action No. 1.) Oak R. Ryo, Respondent, v South Nassau Communities Hospital et al., Defendants, and Long Island Orthopaedic Group, P.C., et al., Appellants. (Action No. 2.)

[738 NYS2d 855]

In two related actions, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, Long Island Orthopaedic Group., P.C., M. Schuss, Arnold Koopersmith, and Robert Garroway, defendants in Action No. 2, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), entered April 16, 2001, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in Action No. 2 insofar as asserted against them, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion for summary judgment because discovery had not yet been completed *(see,*CPLR 3212 [f]; *Rosa v Colonial Tr.,*276 AD2d 781; *Campbell v City of New York,*220 AD2d 476, 477). Ritter, Acting P.J., Goldstein, Friedmann and Crane, JJ., concur.