alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.3





SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION


I, James R. Smith, Jr., certify that:


|   |                                                                                                    
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Motricity, Inc.; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.

Date: January 18, 2012


/s/ James R. Smith, Jr. ___________


James R. Smith, Jr.


Interim Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Universal Travel Group (the
"Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: May   , 2007                                      /s/ Xin Zhang
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Xin Zhang
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Simon Wamoscher, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

December 19, 1958.

*418
      *Paul Neuberger*and *Werner Galleshi*for temporary administrator of estate of Alexander Auferber, deceased, petitioner.

*Strasser, Spiegelberg, Fried Franh (Benjamin Nassau*of counsel), for G-eorge Philips, as administrator of estate of Philip Philips, deceased ancillary administrator, respondent.

S. Samuel Di Falco, S.

This is a proceeding to compel the filing of an account by George Philips, the administrator with the will annexed of Philip Philips as to the proceeding of Philip Philips as ancillary administrator of the estate of Simon Wamoscher, deceased who was a resident of Yugoslavia at the time of his death on April 23, 1945. The proceeding is brought by the temporary administrator of the estate of Alexander Auferber. The temporary administrator was appointed pending the determination of an application for ancillary letters of administration on the estate of Alexander Auferber, who was also a resident of Yugoslavia at the time of his death on August 31, 1942.

No reason is set forth in the papers why a trial and determination should be had in this court in the ancillary proceeding. The parties in interest are all nonresidents. No part of the claim arose as a cause of action in this State. The petition alleges that Alexander Auferber and Simon Wamoscher were partners in a partnership conducted in Yugoslavia and that certain funds of the partnership were deposited in the joint names of the partners in a New York bank. The funds were paid over to the ancillary administrator of this estate since decedent survived Alexander Auferber. The law as to the status of the parties, their obligations under the partnership agreement, the running of the Statute of Limitations and many other disputed questions would have to be tested by the law of Yugoslovia. As pointed out by Surrogate Foley in *Matter of Meyer*(125 Misc. 361, 364): “ The purpose of ancillary administration and the distribution of the assets here is primarily for the protection of New York creditors and New York beneficiaries of an estate. The question as to whether the claims of foreign creditors in ancillary administration would be recognized in this estate is not one of jurisdiction, but a question of the judicial discretion of the surrogate.” (See, also, *Matter of Worch,*124 Misc. 380 to the same effect.) The motion to dismiss *419the petition herein is therefore granted. In view of this determination the court will not pass upon the other objections to the claim of the petitioner but they may be renewed in any proceeding brought in the domiciliary jurisdiction.

Submit decree on notice.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7407

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALDO TYNELL LIGHTFOOT, a/k/a Tynell, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-98-150, CA-99-705-3) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 22, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronaldo Tynell Lightfoot, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, John Staige Davis, V, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ronaldo Tynell Lightfoot seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lightfoot , Nos. CR-98- 150; CA-99-705-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 18, 2000). 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains financial information extracted from Annual Report Form
10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                              13,383
<SECURITIES>                                         1,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        8,725
<ALLOWANCES>                                         (516)
<INVENTORY>                                            181
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    29,556
<PP&E>                                               9,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                       4,739
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      53,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               14,230
<BONDS>                                              4,529
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               332
<OTHER-SE>                                          32,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        53,444
<SALES>                                             59,805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    72,078
<CGS>                                               39,665
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       55,107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     16,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                            58
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 15,788
<DISCONTINUED>                                          37
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        15,825
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         4.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         4.20
        

</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 98

To authorize appropriations for the Surface Transportation Board for fiscal

years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. HOLLINGS, and Mr. LOTT) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for the Surface Transportation

Board for fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Surface Transpor5 tation Board Reauthorization Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION LEVELS.

7 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Sur8 face Transportation Board $16,000,000 for fiscal year
2

•S 98 IS

1 1999, $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2000, $17,555,000 for

2 fiscal year 2001, and $18,129,000 for fiscal year 2002.

3 SEC. 3. CHAIRMAN DESIGNATED WITH SENATE CONFIRMA4 TION.

5 Section 701(c)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is

6 amended by striking ‘‘President’’ and inserting ‘‘Presi7 dent, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,’’.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

NO. 13-0030

IN THE INTEREST OF B.M.A.J., A CHILD 

## § RT OF APPEALS Van Zandt County, § § FILE COPY

th District.

March 8, 2013 

### Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby isdenied denied.

•••••••*•• 

### I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court ofTexas, do hereby certify that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of 

### Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear ofrecord in the minutes of said Court under the date shown. 

### The Court, noting that petitioner has filed an affidavit attesting to the inability to pay costs herein expended, hereby waives payment ofcosts. 

### WITNESS my hand and seal ofthe Supreme Court ofTexas, at the City ofAustin, this the 19th day ofApril, 2013.
Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk By Kathy Sandoval, Deputy Clerk
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Terri HOFFIELD.

No. 89-KK-0969.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 26, 1989.

In re Hoffield, Terri; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, prohibition, mandamus, supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “N”, No. 89-1281; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 89-KW-0257.

Granted. The court is ordered to hold a preliminary hearing immediately. See C.Cr.P. 292.
#### Gregory Michael EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-1419.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 15, 1989.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Kenneth Witts, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paula C. Coffman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

*1161DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a sentence.

Appellant asserts he is *entitled*to be sentenced to prison rather than probation if he so requests and the sentence is a one-cell departure as if he had violated probation. He cites *Williams v. State,*522 So.2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) and *Holley v. State,*483 So.2d 854 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) in support of his assertion. We do not read those cases to say a defendant is so entitled and have said so in *Woods v. State,*542 So.2d 443 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Although the state “has no quarrel with this court granting the relief sought by the appellant” we are firm in the position that no lawful sentence given by a sentencing judge will be disturbed on appeal. Sentencing is for trial court judges; not prosecutors, not defense attorneys and not appellate judges. The sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

SHARP, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. John E. SPELLMAN v. Hon. Thomas McBRIDE, Judge, 34th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Bernard.

No. 88-KH-1067.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re Spellman, John E.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, writ of mandamus, prohibition, supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 99-250.

Granted. Transferred to the Court of Appeal, 4th Circuit, for consideration.
#### SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY v. Ben BAKER, et al.

No. 88-C-0053.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1988.

In re Safeco Insurance Co.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA86-1067; Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 84-2619.

Prior report: La.App., 515 So.2d 655.

Denied.
#### AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. Brian FURLONG, Appellee.

No. 88-329.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Nov. 23, 1988.

Sylvia K. Drusa & Margie E. Irizarry of Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Keiner, Waek & Dickson, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

Stephen A. Carter and Roy B. Dalton, Jr., of Dalton and Provencher, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED on the authority of *Roe v. Arnica Mutual Insurance Co.,*533 So.2d 279 (Fla.1988).

ORFINGER and DANIEL, JJ., and EVANS, V.W., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
#### STATE ex rel. William RILEY v. Robert H. BUTLER, Warden and State of Louisiana.

No. 89-KH-0950.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re WILLIAM RILEY, applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs to the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, Section F, Nos. 224-833, 224-834.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from form 10K at
January 1, 2000. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                          18,653,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,947,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,302,000
<INVENTORY>                                      7,214,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,371,000
<PP&E>                                          59,519,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,824,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,633,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,998,000
<BONDS>                                          8,830,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           325,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,530,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,633,000
<SALES>                                         47,948,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,964,000
<CGS>                                           33,326,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,326,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,671,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (501,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (30,634,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (30,634,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (8,982,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (39,616,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (1.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.23)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 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-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,878
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                       856
<INVENTORY>                                        231
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,650
<PP&E>                                          21,609
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,534
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,998
<BONDS>                                         98,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                    (54,235)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,534
<SALES>                                         95,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,437
<CGS>                                           51,707
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,707
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,078
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,676
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,336
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,329
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                516
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        




</TABLE>
* 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

August 28, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40047

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PABLO DE LEON-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-570 

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pablo De Leon-Gonzalez appeals his guilty-plea conviction

and 78-month sentence for illegally reentering the United States

after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated felony

conviction. De Leon-Gonzalez challenges the constitutionality of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). De Leon-Gonzalez’s constitutional challenge

is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 235 (1998). Although De Leon-Gonzalez contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of

the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of
No. 06-40047

-2-

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). De LeonGonzalez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in

light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises

it here to preserve it for further review.

De Leon-Gonzalez argues that the district court erred by

ordering him to cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample as a

condition of his supervised release. Such a claim is not ripe

for review on direct appeal. See United States v. Riascos-Cuenu,

428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed

(Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). Accordingly, this claim is

dismissed. See id. at 1102. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATIONS**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of CNX Gas Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Nicholas J. DeIuliis, President and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer) of the Registrant, certify that to my knowledge, based upon a reviewof the Report:     (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.Date: July 31, 2007       /s/ Nicholas J. DeIuliis         **Nicholas J. DeIuliis**    **President, Chief Executive Officer and Director**
#### John A. NEILY, Petitioner, v. Myrtle PROPST, et al., Respondents.

No. 66972.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 10, 1986.

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1986.

Bruce F. Simberg and Steven J. Chack-man of Conroy, Simberg and Wilensky, Hollywood, for John A. Neily.

Melanie G. May of Bunnell, Denman and Woulfe, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Stanley Frankowitz, D.O., John Thesing, D.O., Sunrise Medical Group, James J. Yesbick, D.O., and David Miller, D.O.

Mercedes C. Busto of Bailey and Dawes, Miami, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Quashed. *See Young v. Altenhaus,*472 So.2d 1152 (Fla.1985).

It is so ordered.

BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.