alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

I, James R. Lavelle,Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Cotelligent, Inc. certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this interim report on Form 10-Q of Cotelligent, Inc.; 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 thisreport, 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 andmaintaining 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 oursupervision, 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 theregistrant’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 changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol 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 ofthe 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 theregistrant’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 14, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

TIBCO SOFTWARE INC.

CERTIFICATION

I, Vivek Y. Ranadivé, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of TIBCO Software Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:



| | (a) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |  |  |                                      |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------ |  | 
|Dated: January 25, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Vivek Y. Ranadivé               
|                        |  |  |  | Vivek Y. Ranadivé                   
|                        |  |  |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

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 TIBCO Software Inc. and will be retained by TIBCO Software Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 29, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

RHONDA STIRLING, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. DAVID STIRLING; DONNA DUCKETT STIRLING, Defendants-Appellees. No. 14-2026 (D.C. No. 1:13-CV-00842-MV-ACT) (D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before GORSUCH , MURPHY , and HOLMES , Circuit Judges.
Rhonda Stirling filed suit against her ex-husband and his wife in federal court alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the case, however, holding that Ms. Stirling failed to state a federal claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We review that decision de

* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.novo and with considerable solicitude to Ms. Stirling who proceeds pro se. See Kay v. Bemis , 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). Even so we cannot help but affirm. As the district court explained, § 1983 “allows citizens to sue those who violate their constitutional rights while acting ‘under color of’ state law.” SECSYS, LLC v. Vigil , 666 F.3d 678, 683-84 (10th Cir. 2012). But in this case Ms. Stirling has sued only her ex-husband and his new wife, neither of whom are state actors, and so her § 1983 claim must fail just as the district court held. On appeal, Ms. Stirling argues that a state trial judge also violated her rights. But we generally do not review new arguments made for the first time on appeal. And, in any event, Ms. Stirling has neither named that judge as a party nor explained how the judge acted in concert with the defendants she has named. Thus, even were we to take cognizance of this new argument Ms. Stirling still lacks any state actor or state action. The district court’s dismissal of Ms. Stirling’s claims is affirmed and her motion to proceed in this appeal without prepayment of fees is denied. She is reminded of her obligation to pay the unpaid balance of the filing fee.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                           0001004605
<NAME>                                          Augment Systems, Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        105,596
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              105,596
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                105,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,778,177
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      124,989
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,797,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  105,596
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               68,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             60,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (108,166)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,062
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,241
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         59
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,741
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,735
<LOANS>                                         36,992
<ALLOWANCE>                                        252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,277
<DEPOSITS>                                      37,430
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                274
<LONG-TERM>                                        300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  43,277
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    769
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   26
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    37
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   832
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 418
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 429
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              403
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       15
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (13)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    291
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    113
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          74
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        74
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.85
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   238
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  252
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            252



</TABLE>
#### David HAYDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-12104 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

David Jonathon Joffe, Joffe Law, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant

Carol Herman, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Stephen Schlessinger, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Carmen M. Lineberger, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Pierce, FL, for Respondent-Ap-pellee

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

David Hayden, a federal prisoner proceeding with counsel, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We granted Mr. Hayden a certificate of appealability on a single issue: ‘Whether Hayden’s appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting and publishing videos depicting child pornography to the jury in open court.”

Mr. Hayden’s counsel, however, failed to raise any substantive arguments concerning this issue in his nearly 50-page opening brief. Because arguments not raised in an opening brief are not properly before this Court, *See Herring v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr.,*397 F.3d 1338, 1342 (11th Cir. 2005), and because “the scope of our review of an unsuccessful § 2255 motion is limited to the issues enumerated in the COA,” *McKay v. United States,*657 F.3d 1190, 1195 (11th Cir. 2011), we affirm the district *775court’s denial of the § 2255 motion.1

AFFIRMED.

1

. We add, in an abundance of caution, that the reply brief fails to show that appellate counsel rendered constitutionally deficient performance under *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and its progeny,
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50303 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. CESAR ROMEO VILLARREAL-MARTINEZ Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CR-406-ALL Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Cesar Romeo VillarrealMartinez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torresv. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. U nited States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 5, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-50303

2 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB 

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 

FOR THE QUARTERENDED MARCH 31, 2005 

 

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer ofPinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the “Issuer”). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Issuer for the quarterly periodended March 31, 2005. 

 

I, John D. Bair, certify that the Quarterly Report onForm 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

 

This certification is executed as of April 27, 2005.
EX PARTE Vincent ONeal MOORE

CR-14-1443

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 5, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Original Filename

King County 300 acre site 3 Jan 2008 PLC data.xls King County 300 Acre Site 1 Data Dec-2007.xls King County 300 acre site 1 Jan 2008 data.xls

King County 300 Acre site 3 December 2007 PLC data.xls King County 300 Acre Site 2 Dec 2007 data.xls King County 300 acre site 2 Jan 2008 PLC data.xlsNew Filename Date Systems System 1 System 2 System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5 System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5 System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 M Pond Jan 2008.xls Jan-08 System 1 Dec-07 Jan-08 F Pond Dec 2007.xls CDG Pond Jan 2008.xls Dec-07 Jan-08 Dec-07 CDG Pond Dec 2007.xls South Pond Jan 2008.xls South Pond Dec 2007.xlsCorresponding Pond

M Pond South Pond South Pond F Pond CDG Ponds CDG Ponds
#### Jovica PETROVIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden Stephanie HOLLEMBEAK; Mr. Hiscocks, Assistant Warden; Captain Smith; Lieutenant Candalario; Lieutenant Rodenbaugh; Lieutenant Plucker; Lieutenant Moore; Lieutenant Wright; Unit Manager Unknown Gregory; Correctional Officer Coor; Officer Peele; Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6234

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 25, 2017

Jovica Petrovic, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jovica Petrovic seeks to appeal the district court’s order entered after a preliminary' screening of Petrovic’s complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). 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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Petrovic seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten*166tions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rosbel FLORES-VERA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-41600 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 5, 2017

Amy Howell Alaniz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rosbel Flores-Vera, Pro Se

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rosbel Flores-Vera appeals the 84-month sentence imposed by the district court after his guilty plea conviction for being found in the United States illegally following a prior conviction for an aggravated felony. Relying upon *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), he argues that the district court erred by imposing a U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) enhancement based upon his prior conviction under Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a)(1).

We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. *See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). We have previously held that § 30.02(a) is divisible under the modified categorical approach and that a § 30.02(a)(1) conviction supports a § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) enhancement. *United States v. Conde-Castaneda,*753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014). Contrary to Flores-Vera’s argument, *Conde-Castaneda*remains good law in the wake of *Mathis. See United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 669-71 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; High impact, Interdisciplinary Science in NIDDK Research Areas (RC2 Clinical Trial Optional): Celiac Disease.                    

*Date:*                         March 25, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         2:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         NIDDK-Democracy 2, DEM 2, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Maria E. Davila-Bloom, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7017, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-7637,                         *davila-bloomm@extra.niddk.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 8, 2022.

David W. Freeman, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-03055 Filed 2-11-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P