alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Kerry K.W. Nagy, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Barnabus Enterprises Ltd.;

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 subsidiaries, 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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:  October 27, 2003 | /s/  Kerry K.W. NagyKerry K.W. Nagy 
Treasurer 
(Principal Financial Officer)
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit32.1**

** **

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

Solely for thepurpose of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to theextent this certification may be applicable to this Report on Form 10-Q, theundersigned hereby certify that this report on Form 10-Q of Stewart &Stevenson Services, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in this report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Stewart &Stevenson Services, Inc.

 

 
|   | /s/  Max L. Lukens   |                                        |
|--------|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:                     | Max L. Lukens                               |
|   | Title:                    | President and Chief Executive  Officer      |
|   |                      |
|   |                      |
|   | /s/  John B. Simmons |                                        |
|   | Name:                     | John B. Simmons                             |
|   | Title:                    | Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |
|        |                           |                                             |  |  |

 

----
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20027

Summary Calendar

DAVID ALLEN MARTIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CV-464

September 10, 2002

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

David Allen Martin (Martin) appeals the district court’s

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his Social

Security Act case. He maintains that the district court erred when

it con cluded that he had not asserted a constitutional claim

sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

This court conducts a de novo review of a Rule 12(b)(1) lack2

of subject matter jurisdiction dismissal and applies the same

standard used by the district court. R amming v. United States

, 281

F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied

, 122 S.Ct. 2665 (2002).

When, as in this case, a litigant fails to object to the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation, which contains a clear statement

of the consequences of failing to object, this court may review the

district court’s decision for plain error. See Douglas v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n

, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en

banc). Jurisdictional questions, however, such as those presented

by Martin, cannot be waived and may be raised at any time. S ee

United States v. Lopez-Vasquez

, 227 F.3d 476, 482 n.11 (5th Cir.

2000). Because the district court’s decision was appropriate under

either standard, we decline to choose between them. Id

.

Martin seeks review of a Social Security Administration

decision not to reopen prior proceedings and that res judicata

precluded relitigation of the issues Martin raised. This decision

is not subject to judicial review unless challenged on

constitutional grounds. S ee Califano v. Sanders

, 430 U.S. 99, 107-

09 (1977). A claimant must make a colorable claim of a

constitutional violation to vest a court with jurisdiction to

review a refusal to reopen or a res judicata determination by the

Administration. S ee Robertson v. Bowen

, 803 F.3d 808, 810 (5th

C ir. 1986). Martin has failed to assert anything other than a

conclus ory allegation of a constitutional violation and thus has3

failed to comply with the directive set forth in Robertson

.

We fail to discern any error, plain or otherwise, in the

district court’s decision. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.
Exhibit 32.2



BOSTON LIFE SCIENCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



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 Boston Life Sciences, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Joseph P. Hernon, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



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





/s/ JOSEPH P. HERNONJoseph P. HernonExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary




Date: November 15, 2004
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/28

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 28 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
July 19, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RONALD KEITH BLOOMIN GKEMPER, UNITED SECU RITIES ALLIANCE, INC
.,

AND MARKETING ALLIAN CE, INC., Appellants

NO. 14

- 08

- 00651

- CV V.
JOHN W. MCCAIN, SAVA NNA MCCAIN, TIM SHOULDERS, MICHELLE SHOULDERS, TERRY YAR BROUGH, MARK YAWS, A MY YAWS, KAREN WESSELS, BETTY J. WE ST, BOBBY L. WEST, M ICHAEL B. COCUREK, J AMES PETKAS, LEAH D. PETK AS, JAMES A. TOUCHST ONE, KEVIN WASNER, INTREPID INTERNATION AL INVESTMENTS, INC. , ARMANDO LOPEZ, HILDA

PEREZ LOPEZ, AND MAX IMO H. MARTINEZ , Appellees

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on April 16, 2008. Having considered the motion and found it merit orious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellants, Ronald Keith Bloomingkemper, Uni ted Securities Alliance, Inc., a nd Marketing Alliance, Inc. We further order this decision ce rtified below for observance.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO LIFT STAY

PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. 

AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00507-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO LIFT STAY

Having considered the Joint Motion to Lift Stay Pursuant to This Court’s August 11, 2021 

Order filed by plaintiff Neonode Smartphone LLC and defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 

and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and good cause appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS 

that the stay in this case is lifted. The parties shall file a proposed scheduling order within one 

week of entry of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this _________ day of _______, 2023.

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 63-1 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin M. Corby, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered November 13, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree.

*683Although not claiming that the actual amount of his restitution was in error, defendant now argues that a reduction is nevertheless warranted due to his present economic situation. At the time of sentencing, defendant informed County Court that he wanted and intended to pay full restitution. In addition, defendant specifically acknowledged at his plea that, if given probation, he would pay the agreed-upon amount of restitution. Having received the sentence for which he bargained, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion in fixing the amount of restitution *(see, People v Palella,*148 AD2d 838, 839, *lv denied,*74 NY2d 795).

Judgment affirmed. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.
Final Notes July 9, 2010

Steam Study Data Review Notes

Nitrate/Nitrite EPA Method 353.2 (1993)

(Automated Colorimetry)

1. Samples that contain a high concentration of suspended solids should be filtered

(353.2/4.1).

2. EDTA should be added to samples that contained high concentrations of iron, copper, 

and/or other metals (353.2/4.2).

3. If reported, indicate whether samples were checked for residual chlorine and if samples 

contained chlorine, indicate if sodium thiosulfate or another chemical was added to 

dechlorinate the samples (353.2/4.3).

4. Prior to analysis, the pH of the sample should be adjusted to between 5 and 9 using HCl 

or NH4OH. If reported, state the pH of the samples prior to analysis.

5. Automated continuous flow analysis equipment should be used to analyze the samples

(353.2/6.3).

6. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 5 times the analyte concentration 

in the laboratory reagent blank, report the result as a nondetect. List all affected samples:

7. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times 

the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank, report the result as an estimated 

value. List all affected samples:
68315084v1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

S3G TECHNOLOGY LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HOMEAWAY, INC.; HOMEAWAY.COM, 

INC.; and HOMEAWAY SOFTWARE, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-564

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JOINT MOTION TO STAY ALL DEADLINES AND

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff S3G Technology LLC (“S3G”) and Defendants Homeaway.com, Inc. and 

Homeaway Software, Inc. (“Homeaway”) have settled the claims asserted in this case between 

them and memorialized their agreement in a signed final settlement agreement. Accordingly, 

pursuant to this Court's Standing Order Regarding Proper Notification of Settlement to the Court 

and subject to this Court’s approval, S3G and Homeaway request that the Court stay all deadlines, 

including the deadline for Homeaway to respond to the complaint and the entry of a Docket Control 

Order, which has yet to be entered, for thirty (30) days so that appropriate dismissal papers may 

be submitted upon performance of certain terms of the settlement agreement. S3G and Homeaway 

anticipate filing a stipulation of dismissal within 30 days.

DATED: October 14, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Charles Ainsworth

Charles Ainsworth

Case 6:20-cv-00564-ADA Document 20 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 2
68315084v1

2

State Bar No. 00783521

Robert Christopher Bunt

State Bar No. 00787165

PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.

100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114

Tyler, TX 75702

Telephone: (903) 531-3535

Facsimile: (903) 533-9687

E-mail: charley@pbatyler.com

E-mail: rcbunt@pbatyler.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF S3G 

TECHNOLOGY LLC

DATED: October 14, 2020

By: /s/ Henry Pogorzelski (with permission)

Henry Pogorzelski

State Bar No. 24007852

K&L GATES LLP 

2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 350 

Austin, TX 78746-7568

Telephone: (512) 482-6826 

Facsimile: (512) 482-6859

E-mail: henry.pogorzelski@klgates.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS 

HOMEAWAY.COM, INC.; and HOMEAWAY 

SOFTWARE, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the following counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented 

to electronic service are being served this 14th day of October, 2020, with a copy of the document 

via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be 

served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date.

/s/ Charles Ainsworth 

CHARLES AINSWORTH 

Case 6:20-cv-00564-ADA Document 20 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 19

- 12227

_________________________
SMILEDIRECTCLUB, LLC,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

TANJA D. BATTLE, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Georgia Board of Dentistry, e t al

. , Defendants

- Appellants.

__________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida

__________________________

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON, MARTIN, JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, BRANCH, GRANT, LUCK, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Ju dges.

BY THE C OURT:

A judge of this Court hav ing requested a poll on whether this case should be

reheard en banc, and a majority of the judges of this Court in active service having

voted in favor, the Court sua sponte ORDERS that this case will be reheard en banc.

The panel’s opinion is VACATED.

USCA11 Case: 19-12227 Date Filed: 12/08/2020 Page: 1 of 1
#### GAINES v. STATE.

No. 27079.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 26, 1954.

Reid & Reid, by J. W. Reid, Abilene, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for the sale of beer in a dry area; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The complaint alleged the sale of beer to James L. Douglas on or about October 16, 1953. According to the record, such complaint was sworn to on October 3, 1953, which was before the date the offense was alleged to have been committed.

The state confesses error under the authority of Bradshaw v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 243 S.W.2d 586. See also Gaines v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 269 S.W.2d 679 and Tex.Cr.App., 269 S.W.2d 679.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.
* 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 3, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50376

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VALENTIN HIDALGO-PERALTA, 

also known as Valentine Hidalgo-Peralta; 

GADIEL HIDALGO-PERALTA,

Defendants-Appellants.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-2025-4-DB

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

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court appointed counsel for Valentin Hidalgo-Peralta has

moved for leave to withdraw in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hidalgo-Peralta has received a

copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response.

Our independent review of the record discloses one possible

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Hidalgo-Peralta may have an

argument that Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2537 (2004)

invalidates his sentence. However, Hidalgo-Peralta’s sentence
No. 04-50376

-2-

was based on the statutory minimum sentence, not the Federal

Sentencing Guidelines, and this court has held that Blakely does

not apply to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. United States v.

Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 473 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert.

filed (July 14, 2004). Nonetheless, counsel could have raised a

potential Blakely issue to preserve it for Supreme Court review. 

See McKnight v. General Motors Corp., 511 U.S. 659, 660 (1994).

Because our independent review of the record has revealed

this possible nonfrivolous issue for appeal, we deny counsel’s

motion to withdraw. By denying the motion to withdraw, HidalgoPeralta has preserved the Blakely issue for further review. We

pretermit further briefing, however, in light of Pineiro, and

AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

December 12, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00158

- CR

Clarence Edward LIPPERT

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7076 Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The State’s appellee’s brief is due October 10, 2022. On October 5 , 2022, the S t ate filed a motion requesting a sixty

- day ex tension of time. On October 7, 2022, we issued an order granting t he motion and ordering the State to file its brief no later than December 9 , 2022. Our
order cautioned the State that f urther requests for an extension of time will not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances

.
O n December 9, 2022, the State filed a motion requesting a seven

- day extension of time.
The motion is GRANTED and the State is ORDERED to file its brief no later than December 16, 2022 . If the State does not file its brief on or before December 16th, this appeal is subject to being set for su bmission without benefit of the State’s brief. The State is further cautioned that counsel’s heavy case load or demanding work schedule is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting further requests for an extension of time.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of December, 2022

.

__________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ALEX PROIMOS

Plaintiff,

v.

THRIVEWORKS SOLUTIONS, LLC

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-662-RP

NOTICE	OF	SETTLEMENT	AND	DISMISSAL

IT	IS	HEREBY	NOTICED,	the	above	case	has	settled	and	should	be	dismissed	with	

prejudice	pursuant	to	Fed	R.	Civ.	P.	41	(a)(1)(A)(i)	with	each	side	to	bear	their	own	costs	

and	attorney’s	fees.

/s/Richard	Liebowitz

Richard	Liebowitz

Liebowitz	Law	Firm,	PLLC

11	Sunrise	Plaza,	Suite	305

Valley	Stream,	NY	11580

Tele:	516-233-1660

RL@LiebowitzLawFirm.com

Counsel	for	Plaintiff Alex	Proimos

Case 1:20-cv-00662-RP Document 12 Filed 01/13/21 Page 1 of 1
----

----

|   | 1. | 20,000 US$ out of the 71,000 US$ were already paid to CBR and ADRES |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The last milestone payment of 51,000 US$ will be paid upon issuance this amendment (invoice to be issued 1 March 2012) |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | As of 1 March 2012 until the IND submission, monthly retainer payment to ADRES equivalent to 15 hours per month at a rate of 400 NIS per hour (it is expected to submit the IND within 6-8 months) |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 4. | As of 1 March 2012 until the IND submission, fee for sercive payment to CBR. The total budget should not exceed 16,000 US$ |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 5. | As stated in the service agreement, correspondence with the FDA after IND submission and prior to its approval, limited to 20 hours, will be free of charge. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|       | Company          | Contractor                   |                                    |
|------------|------------------|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|       | Oramed Ltd       | CBR International Corp.      | ADRES Advanced Regulatory Services Ltd. |
| By         | /s/ Nadav Kidron | /s/ Jeanne Novak             | /s/ Rivka Zaibel                        |
| Print Name | Nadav Kidron     | Jeanne M. Novak, Ph.D        | Rivka Zaibel                            |
| Title:     | CEO              | CEO and Principal Consultant | CEO and Consultant                      |
| Date:      | 2/27/12          | 3/8/12                       | 3/8/12                                  |

----

----