alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Igor Gonda, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aradigm Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely 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 recentevaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       /s/ Igor Gonda         Igor Gonda    *President and Chief Executive Officer*       Dated: November 14, 2006
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



In connection with the quarterly report of Netopia, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Alan B. Lefkof, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



By:

/s/ Alan B. LefkofAlan B. LefkofPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 9, 2005
#### Munley, Appellant, *v.*Northern Electric Street Railway Company.

*Practice, O. P.*— Trials—Objection *to admission of*evidence— *Withdrawal of objection.*

Where on the trial of an action against a street railway company to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s property resulting from the change of grade of a city street, plaintiffs objected to the admission in evidence of certain testimony taken at a hearing in former suits against the city relating to the same matter, and such objection was overruled and the evidence admitted, and thereafter during the trial in pursuance of a suggestion by the court it was agreed by plaintiff’s counsel that all the testimony taken in the former proceedings should be read, such agreement amounted to a withdrawal of the prior objection and could not be successfully made the basis of an assignment of error on appeal.

Argued March 16, 1916.

Appeals, Nos. 17, 18 and 19, Jan. T., 1916, by plaintiffs, from judgments of C. P. Lackawanna Co., Oct. T., 1911, Nos. 800, 801 and 802, respectively, on verdicts for defendants in cases of John Munley, Bridget Nolan and Martin Keenehan v. Northern Electric Street Railway Company.

Before Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker and Frazer, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for injuries to private property resulting from change of grade of city street. Before Staples, P. J., specially presiding.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

*379Verdict for defendant in each case. Plaintiffs appealed.

*Errors assigned*were various rulings on evidence and in refusing plaintiffs’ motions for a new trial.

*M. A. McGinley,*for appellants.

*S. O. Reynolds*and *Joseph O’Brien,*for appellees.

April 17, 1916 :

Pee Curiam,

We can see no merit in these appeals. The single assignment alleges error in admitting in evidence in these suits against the Northern Electric Street Railway Company testimony of witnesses taken at a former trial of cases brought by two of the plaintiffs, Munley and Keenehan, against the City of Scranton. Those cases were brought to recover damages resulting to the plaintiffs by reason of a change of grade made by the city in the street in front of their premises, and were tried before a referee. When the offer of testimony was made, the plaintiffs’ counsel objected, the objection was overruled, and the evidence was admitted. Munley’s testimony was then read from the record in the former suits, and at its conclusion, the court suggested that the reading of the testimony of the other witnesses might lead to confusion, whereupon “it was agreed by the plaintiffs’ counsel that all the testimony taken before the referee (in the city cases) shall be read.” The appellee then read the testimony of the other witnesses. This was manifestly a withdrawal of the objections previously made to the offer, and an agreement that all the testimony taken before the referee in the cases against the City of Scranton should be read in the present suits brought against the defendant railway company to recover damages for an alleged subsequent change of grade in the same street.

The judgment in each case is affirmed.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PAMELA JOY LEE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 6, 2023

v No. 361277

Clinton Circuit Court
EDGAR JOHNSON III, LC No. 10

- 022282

- DM

Defendant

- Appellee.

Before: G ADOLA

, P .J., and G ARRETT and F EENEY , JJ.

F EENEY , J. (concurring)

I concur with the majority opinion but write separately to suggest that the trial court should take proactive steps while waiting to conduct the hearing on remand. For example, the trial court could order, pending the hearing, that plaintiff shall provide defendant and the trial court, within 7 days, the following information: her home address, the children’s address, her phone numb ers and email addresses, the children’s phone numbers and email addresses, the children’s school names and phone numbers as well as their doctors’ and counselors’ phone numbers, and addresses. Additionally, the trial court could order that defendant shall have parenting time via any means possible as often as possible pending the hearing on remand and shall have access to school, medical, and counseling records

, and plaintiff shall ensure that defendant is listed as a parent contact with each school, docto r and counselor. Plaintiff’s decision to move out of state and cut

off the children’s contact with defendant should not be tolerated or perpetuated. N oticeably absent from the lower court record are any motions by plaintiff to terminate or limit defendant ’s parenting time but through her inaction and geographic relocation , she has achieved that objective. If plaintiff refuses or fails to follow through with any orders that the trial court chooses to enter pending the hearing, the trial court will most lik ely reflect plaintiff’s failures in its evaluation of
the best interest factors, MCL 722.23.

/s/ Kathleen A. Feeney
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 75627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21117]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 19, 2024.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has 
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information, please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: September 12, 2024.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-21117 Filed 9-12-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

US Pan American Solutions, LLC ) ASBCA No. 62629

)

Under Contract No. W911S2

- 19

- P

- 2528 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Jorge DelPino

President

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Scott N. Flesch, Esq.

Army Chief Trial Attorney

MAJ Aaron McCartney, JA

CPT Timothy M. McLister, JA

Trial Attorneys

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Th e dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated : May 2 6 , 2022

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62629

, Appeal of US Pan American

Solutions, LLC , rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 26, 2022 LAURA EYESTER

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Novoste Corporation (the Company), each hereby
certify that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                                 
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 10, 2005 |  | /s/ ALFRED J. NOVAK                                             
|                   |  | Alfred J. Novak, Chief Executive Officer of Novoste Corporation 
|                   | 
|Date: May 10, 2005 |  | /s/ SUBHASH C. SARDA                                            
|                   |  | Subhash C. Sarda, Chief Financial Officer of Novoste Corporation



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
Novoste Corporation and will be retained by Novoste Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be deemed to be considered filed as
part of the Form 10-Q.
OPTICAL COATING LABORATORY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                        
EXHIBIT 11.  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                        
Years Ended October 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994
(Amounts in thousands, 
except per share data)                        1996      1995     1994

PRIMARY SHARES:

Average common shares outstanding            9,629     9,144    8,975
Common equivalent shares outstanding           672       367       48
                                            10,301     9,511    9,023

Net income                                  $5,196    $7,391   $4,604
Less dividend on preferred stock               960       462

Net income applicable to common stock       $4,236    $6,929   $4,604

Net income per common and common
 equivalent share, primary                    $.41      $.73     $.51

FULLY DILUTED SHARES:

Average common shares outstanding            9,629     9,144    8,975
Common equivalent shares outstanding           685       456       70
Potential dilution of preferred stock            *       553
                                            10,314    10,153    9,045

Net income applicable to common stock       $4,236    $6,929   $4,604
Add back dividend on preferred stock             *       462

Net income for calculating fully diluted
 earnings per share                         $4,236    $7,391   $4,604

Net income per common and common
 equivalent share, fully diluted              $.41      $.73     $.51



*Excluded because the result would be anti-dilutive.

NOTE: Fully diluted earnings per share do not result in dilution of
      three percent or more or are anti-dilutive and, therefore, are not
      separately presented in the consolidated statements of income.
Exhibit 10.5

nStor Technologies, Inc.

October 31, 2004

Hilcoast Development Corp.1601 Forum PlaceSuite 500West Palm Beach, Florida  33417Attn:  Mark F. Levy

Dear Mr. Levy:

We have agreed to the following amendments to that certain Promissory Note, dated June 30, 2003, in the amount of $2,806,744 (the “Note”), as amended on December 31, 2003 increasing the outstanding principal of theNote to $2,919,937, as amended on April 30, 2004 increasing the outstanding principal of the note to $2,997,164, as amended on July 31, 2004 increasing the principal balance of the Note to $3,057,435 with a maturity date of October 31, 2004 (“AmendedNote”), payable by nStor Technologies, Inc. (“nStor”) to Hilcoast Development Corp., copies of which are attached hereto.  

1)         Effective August 1, 2004, the interest rate on the Note is hereby reduced from 8% per annum to 6% per annum.

2)         The maturity date of the Amended Note is hereby extended from October 31, 2004 to April 15, 2006 (“Maturity”).

3)         The following amounts are hereby added to the $3,057,435 principal amount of the Amended Note: (i) Accrued and unpaid interest through October 31, 2004 in the amount of$46,112 and (ii) $46,453 of amounts due from nStor to Hilcoast Advisory Services, Inc. in connection with our advisory agreement, so that as of the date hereof, the principal amount of the Amended Note has been increased to $3,150,000 (the “New PrincipalAmount”).  Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum will accrue on the unpaid New Principal Amount and be payable monthly on the tenth day of each month, commencing on December 10, 2004.  Any accrued and unpaid interest will be payable atMaturity.

Except as set forth in this letter, the Note remains unmodified and in full force and effect.  Please indicate your concurrence with the foregoing.

Sincerely,                                                        Hilcoast Development Corp.

/s/ ToddGresham                                            Agreed By: /s/ Mark F. LevyToddGresham                                                                        Mark F. LevyPresident                                                                                Vice President and Secretary                                                                                               Hilcoast Advisory Services, Inc.

                                                                      Agreed By: /s/ Mark F. Levy                                                                                               Mark F. Levy, President

**6190 Corte Del Cedro * Carlsbad * California * 92009(760) 683-2500 * fax (760) 683-2544**
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 Certification Pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2004 (the Report), by Xybernaut Corporation (the Registrant),
the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant. /s/ EDWARD G. NEWMANEdward G. Newman
Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of Directors
November 8, 2004/s/ THOMAS D. DAVISThomas D. Davis
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
November 8, 2004/s/ STEVEN A. NEWMANSteven A. Newman
President, Chief Operating Officer and
Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors
November 8, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to
Xybernaut Corporation and will be retained by Xybernaut Corporation, and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
----

----

| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  February      20, 2009 |   |                                                                                                      |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |   | /s/      Robert W. Dunlap                                                                            |
|                                    |   | Robert      W. Dunlap                                                                                     |
|                                    |   | Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (principal executive and      financial officer) |

----

----
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00507-CR

CARL ROBERSON APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. F-2013-1844-D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Carl Roberson attempts to appeal his conviction for driving while 

intoxicated. The trial court’s certification states that this “is a plea-bargain case, 

and the defendant has NO right of appeal” and that “the defendant has waived 

the right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). We notified Roberson that 

the appeal would be dismissed pursuant to the trial court’s certification unless he 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 44.3. Roberson filed a 

response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal. Therefore, in 

accordance with the trial court’s certification, we dismiss this appeal. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

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

DELIVERED: February 26, 2015