alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**
CERTIFICATION
     I, Joseph Gisch, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DDi Corp.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;
 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Dated: August 13, 2004 /s/  Joseph Gisch   **Joseph Gisch**   **Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6984

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROY KNIGHT, a/k/a Little Roy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00163-JRS-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Knight, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Eugene Anthony, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roy Knight appeals the district court’s order denying his 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Knight, No. 3:03-cr-00163-JRS-1 (E.D. 

Va. July 6, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
T.C. Memo. 1999-319

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

ALFREDO DOMINGUEZ, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 17302-98. Filed September 24, 1999.

Alfredo Dominguez, pro se. Nancy L. Spitz , for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge : Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes in the amounts of $82 and $17 for the taxable years 1996 and 1997, respectively. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.- 2 -

The sole issue for determination is whether petitioner is entitled to the earned income credit for the tax years 1996 and 1997. This case was submitted fully stipulated. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in Immokalee, Florida, when the petition in this case was filed. During the years at issue, petitioner was incarcerated at a penal institution. Petitioner listed his occupation as beggar on his 1996 and 1997 Federal income tax return. In 1996, petitioner received money from family and friends in the amount of $1,100. In 1997, petitioner received money from family and friends in the amount of $228. The family and friends who provided the money to petitioner had no expectation of repayment. During the years in issue, petitioner did not earn any income working for the prison. Petitioner reported income from begging in the amount of $1,100 on his 1996 Federal income tax return and claimed an earned income credit in the amount of $82. Likewise, on his income tax return petitioner reported income from begging in the amount of $228 and claimed an earned income credit in the amount of $17. Petitioner is not entitled to the earned income credit he claimed on his 1996 and 1997 tax returns. An eligible individual is allowed an earned income credit for the taxable year in an- 3 -

amount equal to the credit percentage of so much of the taxpayer's earned income as does not exceed the earned income amount. See sec. 32(a). Earned income includes wages, salaries, tips, and other employee compensation. See sec. 32(c)(2)(A)(i). The money petitioner received from begging does not meet the definition of earned income provided by section 32. Rather, the money petitioner received from his family and friends was received as a gift. A gift is a transfer that proceeds from a "’detached and disinterested generosity,’ * * * out of affection, respect, admiration, charity or like impulses." Commissioner v. Duberstein , 363 U.S. 278, 285 (1960) (quoting Commissioner v.
LoBue , 351 U.S. 243, 246 (1956)). In this case, petitioner's friends and family did not have an expectation of repayment or economic benefit. Instead, petitioner's family and friends transferred money to petitioner with a detached and disinterested generosity and out of charity. With respect to the earned income credit, petitioner had no earned income, and, therefore, is not entitled to the earned income credit. Decision will be entered for respondent
.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,159
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                       216
<INVENTORY>                                        105
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,331
<PP&E>                                           2,731
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,796
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,852
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,525)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,266
<SALES>                                         17,518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,518
<CGS>                                           14,948
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   431
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 540
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,919)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       156
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,075)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,075)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.72)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.1


CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Superclick, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ending January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Sandro
      Natale, Chief Executive 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
      Periodic 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 Periodic 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
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Dated:
              February 23, 2007
            
            /s/ Sandro NataleName:
                Sandro Natale
              Title:
                President & Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL JIRON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. RAYMOND VALDEZ; ERIC SCHWIESON; MARIA ZERBIE, and her clients; JUDGE GOLDBERGER; CONEJOS COUNTY, on behalf of Judge Swift; HUFFERNO COUNTY, Welsenberger, Defendants-Appellees. No. 13-1460 (D. Colorado) (D.C. No. 1:13-CV-01952-LTB)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ , GORSUCH , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

The district court dismissed Michael Jir on’s suit because his complaint failed to comply with the plead ing requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm the district court’s judgment because Jiron has forfeited his right to have that judgment reviewed. Even though Jiron is pro se, his appellate brief contains no argument that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint. See Garrett v. Selby Connor

* After examining the briefs and the appe llate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argumen t. This order and judgme nt is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of la w of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federa l Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 3, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - Maddux & Janer , 425 F.3d 836, 840–41 (10th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal order where a pro se plaintiff made no argum ent of substance in his briefs). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’ s judgment, we deny Jir on’s other motions as moot, and we deny Jir on’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis . We remind him that he must pay the filing and docket fees in fu ll to the clerk of the district court.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.8

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Glenn P. Dickes, Scott L. Seybold and Barry F.
Schwartz or any of them, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact
and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and in his name, place and
stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the PANAVISION INC. (the
"Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including, without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and
on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or
officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any
instrument, contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the
Form 10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits
thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including this power of
attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and any applicable
securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in
and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or
could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this 28th
day of March, 2001.



                                       /S/ PHILIP E. BEEKMAN
                                       ----------------------
                                       Philip E. Beekman
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 30, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 30, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A0603. ALEXANDER PADILLA v. ERMES MEDRANO d/b/a MEDRANO 

FLOORING AND GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
#### CALVIN C. BIGELOW, Complainant, Appellant, *vs.*FRANKLIN B. GOSS, Defendant, Appellee.

On appeal from a final decree in a cause heard on the pleadings and proofs, the printed case must contain the evidence, or a fair abstract thereof} or the appeal will he dismissed.

*Per Curiam.*

Tbis was an appeal in equity from tbe Circuit Court of Winnebago county. Tbe cause was brought to bearing upon tbe pleadings and testimony taken in tbe case, and tbe bill dismissed.

Tbe appeal must be dismissed for non-compliance with tbe rule, wbicb requires tbe appellant to make and present a printed abstract of tbe case, tbe pleadings and evidence. It appears from tbe printed case bere furnisbed, tbat tbe cause was brought to bearing upon tbe pleadings and proofs; but none of tbe evidence, nor any abstract tberéof, is contained therein.

Tbe court cannot wade through a mass of manuscript testimony, and incur tbe risk of mistakes and omissions, but must insist upon tbe rule.

Tbe appeal is dismissed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                        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 Technology Funding Venture Partners V, An
Aggressive Growth Fund, L.P. (the Partnership) Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I Charles, R. Kokesh,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Chairman of Technology Funding Inc. and Managing General Partner of
Technology Funding Ltd., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as added Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Partnership as of
and for the period covered by the Report.

Date:  November 22, 2004   By:    /s/Charles R. Kokesh
                               --------------------------------
                                     Charles R. Kokesh
                                     President, Chief Executive
                                     Officer, Chief Financial
                                     Officer and Chairman of
                                     Technology Funding Inc. and
                                     Managing General Partner of
                                     Technology Funding Ltd.

Technology Funding Venture Partners V, L.P.
(a Delaware limited partnership)

Page 1 of 1
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0511. RODREGUS WATTS v. THE STATE.

In 2004, Rodregus Watts pled guilty to seven counts of armed robbery, two

counts of hijacking a motor vehicle, seven counts of aggravated assault, one count of

possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and six counts of possession of a

firearm during the commission of a felony. Watts later filed multiple pro se motions,

arguing that his sentence was void. The trial court denied the motions on August 10,

2016. Watts filed a notice of appeal on September 21, 2016. We, however, lack

jurisdiction. 

Pretermitting whether Watts has raised a colorable void sentence claim, his

appeal must be dismissed. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing

of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. 

Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Because Watts filed

his notice of appeal 42 days after entry of the trial court’s order, his appeal is

untimely.

1

 Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 Watts also filed an application for discretionary appeal from the trial court’s

order, which thisCourt denied. See Case No. A17D0063, denied September 28, 2016. 

December 07, 2016

12/07/2016
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT \1:11' Protect Hoosiers tmel OurEnvironment. Mi/(/;dlE. Da"ieL,·,.fr. 100 North Senate Avenue Governor Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 232-8603 ]Z,olllm IV /:;'mtcrly Toll Free (800) 451,6027 Commissioner www.idem.IN.goY June 28,2009 Bharat Mathur Acting Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region V 77 WestJackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604 Re: State Implementation Plan Submittal for Indiana regarding 326 lAC 24

- CAIR Amendments (LSA #08-5) DearMr. Mathur: Pursuant to Section 110 ofthe 1990 Clean AirAct Amendments and Title 13 ofthe Indiana Code, the IndianaDepartment ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM) herewith submits an amendment to the Indiana state implementation plan (SIP). This SIP amendment consists ofamendments to 326 lAC 24-1, 326 lAC 24-2, and 326 lAC 24-3 (Clean AirInterstate Rule (CAIR)). On October22, 2007 (72 FR 59480), U.S. EPA gave limited approval ofIndiana's CAIR rules. These amendments to the CAIR rules address issues identified by U.S. EPA to secure full approval and revisions to the definition ofcogeneration unit published on October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59190). In orderto assist with yourreview ofthis state implementation plan submission, a list of supporting documents is attached. Throughoutthe development ofthis rule, staffofthe Office ofLegal Counsel worked closely with your staffto ensure that any potential problems that might exist with this requested SIP revision would be resolved. Irequest that U.S. EPA approve this amendment to Indiana's SIP. Ifyou have any questions regarding this submittal, please contactPatTroth, Rules DevelopmentBranch, Office of Legal Counsel at 317-233-5681.

DM/sb Attachments: Supporting Documents
cc: John Mooney, U.S. EPA Steve Rosenthal, U.S. EPA Susan Bem, IDEM SIP file

An Equal Opportunity Employer ner, Office ofAir Quality

Pll'rISt'Retyde 

### 0Mr. Bharat Mathur Page 201'2

Supporting Documents Attachment A: Final rule. LSA Document # 08-5(F) as published in the Indiana Register on June 10,2009 (DIN: 200906IO-IR-326080005FRA) Attachment B: Signature page Attachment C: Section 7 Notice as published in the Indiana Register on January 23, 2008 (DIN: 20080123-IR-326080005FDA) Attachment D: Publishers Affidavits AttachmentE: Transcript ofFirst Public Hearing held on May 7, 2008 Attachment F: Transcript ofSecond Public Hearing held on March 4, 2009 Attachment G: Proposed rule as published in the Indiana Register on May 28, 2008 (DIN: 20080528-IR-326080005PRA) Attachment H: Rulemaking fact sheet Attachment I: Administrative Checklist (40 CFR 5I, Appendix V)

RecycledPaper @ An E<lual Opportunity Employer Please Rayele 

### 0