alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J. Stanford LIFSEY, Esq., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. The BANK OF TAMPA, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1766

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 24, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of prohibition is denied.

Bank of Tampa's motion for determination that it is not a respondent or to dismiss the petition as to Bank of Tampa is denied as moot.

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
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 Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas J. Baldwin, the Chief Executive Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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), as applicable, 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 Mortons.

Date: November 7, 2008



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/s/ THOMAS J. BALDWIN                    
|Thomas J. Baldwin Chief Executive
Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dondie WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6594

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 19, 2017

Decided: September 22, 2017

Dondie Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen L. Vogrin, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*234PER CURIAM:

Dondie Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district courtjs assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the. prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
EXHIBIT 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



RAE Systems Inc.

Sunnyvale, California



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-113437; 333-109840) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-105368; 333-88684; 333-85720; and 333-32678) of RAE Systems Inc. of our report dated May 2, 2005, relating to RAE Systems Inc. managements assessment of
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of RAE Systems Inc.s internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A. In our report, we disclaim an opinion on managements
assessment and on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting.



|                    
|--------------------
|/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
|BDO Seidman, LLP    
|                    
|San Jose, California
|May 2, 2005
John M. ZUCCARELLI, III, individually and as Mayor of the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, Appellant, v. Richard and Marilyn BARFIELD, Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, Douglas C. Pierson, individually and as Vice Mayor and as Town Commissioner of the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, Daniel Comerford, III, individually and as Town Commissioner of the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, and Thomas M. Disarno, individually and as Town Commissioner of the Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, Appellees.

No. 4D17-1560

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 10, 2018]

Gary K. Oldehoff and Harriet R. Lewis of Lewis Stroud & Deutsch, P.L. Boca Raton, for appellant.

Richard and Marilyn Barfield, Jupiter Inlet Colony, pro se.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed* .

Warner, Gross and Taylor, JJ., concur.
<TABLE>

                            Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc.
                        Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share
                      ( in thousands, except per share amounts)
<CAPTION>

           Primary Earnings Per Common Share

                                               Quarter Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                                 October 5,           October 5,
                                             __________________  __________________    
                                               1995       1996     1995      1996
                                             _______    _______  _______    _______  
            <S>                                 <C>        <C>      <C>         <C> 
            Net Income for the period        $ 1,088    $ 2,619  $ 3,048    $ 3,117 

            Weighted common shares
            outstanding                        3,858      6,283    3,732      4,819

            Dilutive effect of options
            outstanding during the period        247        192      224        166

            Contingent shares                     16          -       16    -
                                             ________    ________  ______    ________

            Total common and common
            equivalent shares                  4,121       6,475    3,972      4,985
                                             ________    _______  _______    ________

            Earnings per common share        $  0.26     $  0.40   $ 0.77    $   0.63 
            Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share

                                               Quarter Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                                 October 5,           October 5,
                                             __________________  ___________________
                                               1995       1996     1995       1996
                                             ________   _______  _______    ________   

            Net Income for the period        $ 1,088    $ 2,619  $ 3,048    $ 3,117  

            Weighted common shares
            outstanding                        3,858      6,283    3,732      4,819

            Dilutive effect of options
            outstanding during the period        247        267      271    267

            Contingent shares                     16          -       16       -
                                             ________   ________   _______   ________ 

           Total common and common
            equivalent shares                  4,121      6,550     4,019     5,086
                                            _________  _________    ______   ________

           Earnings per common share        $   0.26   $  0.40    $  0.76   $ 0.61 
                                           
</TABLE>
                                       E-5
<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 Quarterly Report of Chronimed Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 26, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Henry, F. Blissenbach, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

         (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.



                                             /s/ Henry F. Blissenbach
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Henry F. Blissenbach
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             February 5, 2004
#### Richard B. NICHOLS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Ron HICKMAN, Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-20800 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 20, 2017

Richard B. Nichols, Pro Se

' Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Richard B. Nichols, a former inmate at the Harris County, Texas, jail, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He requests appointment of counsel.

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). In a civil matter, a notice of appeal must ■ be-filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order being appealed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Nichols’s notice of appeal was not filed within that period. *See id.*Although his notice of appeal was filed within the 30-day period to request an extension of time based on excusable ne-*331gleet or good cause, *see*Fed. R. App, P. 4(a)(5)(A), we have not deemed it as such a request because Nichols did not provide any explanation for his untimely filing. *See Henry v. Estelle,*688 F.2d 407, 407 (5th Cir. 1982).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. Nichols’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.

*

 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.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22 - 0305

_________________ JAMES JOSEPH MAIN, JR.,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable John W. Larson , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 24 2024

07/24/2024
Case Number: DA 22-0305
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

# AGENCY:

Commission on Civil Rights.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction of meeting date.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Commission on Civil Rights is holding a briefing of the Connecticut Advisory Committee on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. ET. This notice corrects the previous date of Monday, February 14, 2022, to Tuesday, February 15, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. ET. The notice is in the                         **Federal Register**                         of Friday, January 21, 2022, in FR Doc. 2022-01119, in the second and third columns of page 3279.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Evelyn Bohor, (202) 381-8915,                         *ebohor@usccr.gov.*

CORRECTION: Date of Monday, February 14, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. ET to be replaced with meeting date of Tuesday, February 15, 2022, at 4:00 p.m. ET.

Dated: January 26, 2022.

David Mussatt,

Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.

[FR Doc. 2022-01914 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Michael BREYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALL MEDICAL STAFF, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6186

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Michael Breyan, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Breyan appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. As noted by the magistrate judge, Breyan failed to name a proper defendant in his § 1983 complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the district court identified deficiencies that Breyan may remedy by filing an amended com*103plaint, we conclude that the order Breyan seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Goode v. Cent Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 892,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Breyan to amend his complaint. *Goode,*807 F.3d at 630. 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.

*DISMISSED AND REMANDED*
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00234-CR

April TOLBERT-DAVIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CR-4920

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE WATKINS, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 14, 2024.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
TS

- 11KK4D Addendum to Manufacturing



## Redacted
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of MedSource Technologies, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Richard J. Effress, Chairman of the
Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of MedSource certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  such 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 such report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of MedSource.

Dated:  September 17, 2002

                                               /s/ Richard J. Effress
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Richard J. Effress
                                               Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                                Executive Officer
### Exhibit 31.1

### Certification under Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of

### Rick L. Hurt, Secretary, Treasurer, Director

I, Rick L. Hurt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Intermountain Refining Co., Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of 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
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
4. The small business issuer'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
small business issuer and have:

> 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 small business issuer, is made
> known to us by others within the entity, particularly during the period in which
> this report is being prepared;
> Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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
> Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
> issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
> small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or
> is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's control
> over financial reporting; and

1. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the small
business issuer's board of directors:

> 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 small business issuer's ability to
> record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
> Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
> or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
> internal control over financial
> reporting.

Date: May 22,
2007/s/ Rick L.
Hurt________Rick L. Hurt, Treasurer, Secretary,
Director
Exhibit
15




Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement Form F-3 (No. 333-88248, 333-109837, 333-111731,
333-111734, 333-117085, 333-131272 and 333-122407) and related Prospectus and on
Form S-8( File No. 333-94995, 333-141177, 333-65532 and 333-151929) pertaining
to the Employees' Stock Option Plan of Commtouch Software Ltd., and to the
incorporation by reference therein of our reports dated March 30, 2008 with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Commtouch Software
Ltd.  and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of Commtouch Software Ltd., included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F)
for the year ended December 31, 2008, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.





Kost, Forer, Gabbay &
      KasiererA
      Member of Ernst & Young
Global





Tel-Aviv,
Israel


March 30,
2008
#### Masoumeh MOHAJER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Company; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-55122

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Masoumeh Mohajer, Pro Se

John M. Sorich, PIB Law, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendants-Appellees JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

Abel Ortiz, Esquire, Kimall, Tirey & St. John, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Coffin Ai Ca 5 LLC, Strategic Property Management

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ****

Masoumeh Mohajer appeals pro se from the • district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

We do not consider Mohajer’s federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings because Mohajer does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of those claims in her opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (court does not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief).

We reject as unsupported by the record Mohajer’s contention that opposing counsel filed a proposed order with the district court without a certificate of service.

Defendants’ September 11, 2015 motion for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.