alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

NASSAR GROUP INTERNATIONAL N.G.I. S.A.L. 

(OFFSHORE) R.C., dba NGI Afghanistan for 

Contracting, 

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, 

Appellee

______________________

2023-1479

______________________

Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract 

Appeals in No. 58451, 59465, 59701, Administrative Judge 

Richard Shackleford, Administrative Judge James R. 

Sweet, Administrative Judge J. Reid Prouty. 

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to pay the docketing fee 

required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time 

permitted by the rules, it is 

Case: 23-1479 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 03/09/2023
2 NASSAR GROUP INTERNATIONAL V. SECRETARY OF THE ARMY 

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same 

hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

March 9, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 9, 2023

Case: 23-1479 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 03/09/2023
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Edward Miers, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Global Business Markets, Inc. (the
"Registrant").

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were mea, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statement, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows o the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. As the Registrant's sole certifying officer, I

        a. am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant;

        b. have designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which the annual report is being prepared;

        c. have evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant"s disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

        d. have presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. As the Registrant's sole certifying officer, I have disclosed, based on my
most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
the Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function);

        a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record,
process, summarized and report financial data and have identified for the
Registrant's auditors any material weakness in internal controls; and

        b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls.


                                       32
<PAGE>


6. As the Registrant's sole certifying officer, I have indicated in this annual
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date:  April 15, 2004


By:         /S/ EDWARD MIERS
            ------------------------------------------
Name:       Edward Miers
Title:      President and Principal Executive Officer





















                                       33
<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 REPORT ON
FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,998,879
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,233,434
<PP&E>                                         708,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                 327,987
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,785,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          573,318
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,197
<COMMON>                                        13,231
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,198,047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,785,793
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               391,235
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,947,697
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,556,462)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,556,462)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,556,462)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.35)
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thaddeus RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-31257

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 9, 2017

Kevin G. Boitmann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Thaddeus Richardson, Pro Se

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Thaddeus Richardson, federal prisoner #32639-034, was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He seeks a certifícate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the denial of a postjudgment motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He request *in forma pauperis*(“IFP”) status on appeal.

The postjudgment motion is construed as a motion made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). *See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc.,*784 F.2d 665, 667-68 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), In his motion, Richardson, in an attempt to reopen the time limit for seeking relief from this court, sought to have the district court reinstate its order of dismissal of his § 2255 motion. Because the motion merely sought to reinstate appellate jurisdiction, and did not constitute an attack on the district court’s resolution of his claims on the merits or add a new ground for relief, a COA is unnecessary. *See Gonzalez v. Crosby,*545 U.S. 524, 532-33, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005); *Dunn v. Cockrell,*302 F.3d 491, 491-92 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2002).

Richardson’s case is therefore before this court on his motion to appeal IFP, and this court’s inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’ ” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Richardson’s motion, *See Perez v. Stephens,*745 F.3d 174, 177-79 (5th Cir. 2014); *Hernandez v. Thaler,*630 F.3d 420, 428 (5th Cir. 2011); *Dunn,*302 F.3d at 492-93.

This appeal lacks arguable merit and is DISMISSED. *See Howard,*707 F.2d at 220; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The motion for a COA is DENIED as unnecessary. The motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.

*

 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.
#### Ericka BENEDICTO Plaintiff-Appellant v. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-2498

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 6, 2017

Filed: April 11, 2017

Ericka Benedicto, Pro Se

William Clark Mann, III, City Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ericka Benedicto, an African-American woman, brought an employment discrimination suit against the City of Little Rock, her employer. As relevant to this appeal, Benedicto claimed that a salary disparity between her and a white co-worker was the result of racial discrimination. Following a two-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for the City of Little Rock, and the District Court1 denied Benedicto’s motion for a new trial under Rule 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She appeals and we affirm.

For reversal, Benedicto argues that the District Court should have granted her a new trial because the jury pool was entirely white and the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 59(a) motion. See Burris v. Gulf Underwriters Ins. Co., 787 F.3d 875, 878 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review). Like the District Court, we conclude that the jury-pool argument was not timely raised: the jury pool was entirely white, yet Benedicto waited until twenty-eight days after entry of judgment to challenge the racial composition of the pool. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1861, 1867(c), (e) (providing that litigants have the right to a jury selected “from a fair cross section of the community in the district” and that a party in a civil case may move to stay the proceedings based on improper jury selection before voir dire begins or “within seven days after the party discovered or could have discovered” a violation, whichever is earlier, § 1867 being the exclusive means by which a party in a civil case may challenge jury selection under the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968).

As for the verdict, our review of the record shows no basis to conclude “that the jury’s verdict contravenes the great weight of the evidence to such an extent that allowing the verdict to stand will result in a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Big D Enters., Inc., 184 F.3d 924, 930 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1018, 120 S.Ct. 1419, 146 L.Ed.2d 311 (2000).

*538We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

. The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Tyron D. WILLIAMS, DOC #T42965, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3460

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 21, 2019

No. 04-18-00764-CR, 04-18-00765-CR, 04-18-00774-CR, 04-18-00775-CR, 04-18-00777-CR, 

04-18-00778-CR, 04-18-00779-CR, 04-18-00780-CR, 04-18-00781-CR, 04-18-00782-CR, 

04-18-00783-CR, 04-18-00784-CR, 04-18-00785-CR, 04-18-00786-CR, 04-18-00787-CR, 

04-18-00788-CR, 04-18-00789-CR, 04-18-00790-CR, 04-18-00791-CR, 04-18-00792-CR, 

04-18-00794-CR, & 04-18-00795-CR 

The STATE of Texas, 

Appellant 

v. 

Mark Anthony GONZALEZ, Agustin Perez, Jr., Gabriel Rene Perez, Jeremias Aguilar, Jr., 

Martin M. Rios, Jr., Steven Negrete, Fernando Jefte Mata, Eloy Canales Romo, Francisco 

Antonio Rodriguez, Raymond Ryan Robinson, Winston Robert Modisette, Courtney Marie 

Seilhammer, and Ahmed Mamuth 

Appellees 

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 10041CR, 10056CR, 10122CR, 10134CR, 9711CR, 9712CR, 9892CR, 

10123CR, 10054CR, 10138CR, 10187CR, 9964CR, 10185CR, 10047CR, 10074CR, 

10115CR, 10116CR, 10117CR, 10118CR, 10125CR, 10195CR, 10196CR 

Honorable Spencer W. Brown, Judge Presiding 

ORDER

The State’s Motions for Judicial Notice No. 4716, Judicial Notice 4845, Judicial Notice 

4863, Judicial Notice 4866, and Judicial Notice 4866 (2) will be carried with appeal.

It is so ORDERED on March 21, 2019.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT
31.2
  CERTIFICATION
  PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  I, Brion
D. Umidi, certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc. (the
“registrant”);
  2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 officers 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 officers 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 the 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:
August 8, 2008
  By:
              /s/
      BRION D. UMIDIName:
              Brion
      D. UmidiTitle:
              Senior
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03249]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Dementia Care.
    Date: March 17, 2022.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building 7201, 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Dario Dieguez, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Institutes of Health, National 
Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 827-3101, 
[email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 10, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03249 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
Ricardo TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-523

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Joseph Anthony NASTASI, Appellant, v. Kodie Jean NASTASI, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1939

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 April 4, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher J. Artinian, 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:
May 7, 2010





|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ CHRISTOPHER J. ARTINIAN                    
|Christopher J. Artinian
Chief Executive Officer
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 12
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 12
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 12
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 12
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 12
Page 6 of 12 EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 12
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 12
Page 8 of 12 EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 12
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 12
Page 10 of 12 EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 12
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 12
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 12
# **Exhibit31.2**

# ** **

## **CertificationPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

## ** **

I,Michael H. Carrel, certify that:

 

1.   Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zamba Corporation;

 

2.   Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.   Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby 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’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | August 13, 2003                                 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Michael H. Carrel                                |   |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----