alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

Certifications Pursuant to Section 302 

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

 

I, Curtis J.Parker, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A ofCotelligent, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue 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 financialinformation 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 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 our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others with those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusion 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 overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’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 ofdirectors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign 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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: September 21, 2005
Glen Joseph DAVIS v. STATE of Mississippi

2015-CT-01491-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: February 26, 2018 Closed: May 10, 2018

Certiorari-Denied
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001004990
<NAME> NCS HEALTHCARE
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,526
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  194,170
<ALLOWANCES>                                    37,062
<INVENTORY>                                     46,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               261,151
<PP&E>                                          95,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 648,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          281,659
<BONDS>                                        306,112
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           209
<OTHER-SE>                                     248,409
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   648,277
<SALES>                                        363,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               363,514
<CGS>                                          285,790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  285,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,485
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (38,575)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,796)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,779)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,779)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.45)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODICREPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,the undersigned, Richard N. Snyder, Chief Executive Officer of Forgent Networks, Inc.(the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended April 30,2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended, and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  RICHARD N. SNYDER   |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Richard  N. Snyder       |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | June 15,  2009      |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Forgent Networks, Inc. and will be retained byForgent Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

1

----
#### Max Loewinthan, Appellant, *v.*Beth David Hospital et al., Defendants, and Charles Loventhal et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Submitted May 17, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

■ Motion for reargument on behalf of defendant-respondent Loventhal denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 290 N. Y. 188.)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elwood CLUCK, also known as Jack Cluck, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-50966 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 19, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Elwood Cluck, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Elwood Cluck, federal prisoner # 68640-080, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to file his proposed pleading entitled a “motion to vacate and dismiss the prosecutors’ February 7, 2014 letter and vacate the judgment dated May 27,1997 due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and prosecutorial misconduct.” The district court construed the proposed pleading as seeking a writ of error coram nobis that would vacate Cluck’s 1997 sentence of restitution, and it determined that (1) it could not modify a restitution order through such a writ; (2) the proposed *279claims were duplicative of those raised by Cluck in earlier proceedings; (3) to the extent Cluck sought to raise new claims, he presented no sound reason for his failure to seek appropriate relief earlier; and (4) Cluck failed to demonstrate any substantial, ongoing civil disability resulting from his allegedly wrongful conviction that would warrant granting the extraordinary writ of coram nobis.

We review the district court’s “factual findings for clear error, questions of law de novo, and the district court’s ultimate decision to deny the writ [of coram nobis] for abuse of discretion.” *Santos-Sanchez v. United States,*548 F.3d 327, 330 (5th Cir. 2008), *vacated on other grounds by*559 U.S. 1046, 130 S.Ct. 2340, 176 L.Ed.2d 559 (2010). This court’s “review is limited by the presumption of correctness of prior proceedings and the narrow range of claims cognizable in granting the remedy sought by [the petitioner].” *United States v. Dyer,*136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998). Coram nobis relief is available only upon proof that the petitioner is suffering civil liabilities as a result of the challenged criminal conviction and that the error is of sufficient magnitude to justify the extraordinary relief. *See id.*at 422, 430. “[A] petitioner seeking *coram nobis*must exercise ‘reasonable diligence’ in seeking prompt relief.” *Id.*at 427 (footnoted citations omitted). Thus, he must provide sound reasons for failing to seek appropriate relief earlier. *Id.*at 422.

Cluck did not make the requisite showings in the district court. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cluck’s motion sua sponte. *See Santos-Sanchez,*548 F.3d at 330. We do not address challenges to the Government’s enforcement efforts that were not preserved below. *See Nunez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*604 F.3d 840, 846 (5th Cir. 2010).

The district court’s order is AFFIRMED. All pending motions are DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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.
#### THERMOFIL INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 79-1594.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 11, 1981.

*859James C. Bruno, Fitzgerald, Young, Peters, Dakmak & Bruno, Ronald J. Santo, Betty C. Bechtel, Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Kenneth Hipp, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before WEICK, ENGEL and JONES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the briefs, record and arguments of counsel, we are of the opinion that substantial evidence supports the order of the Board entered on September 14,1979, reported at 244 NLRB No. 171, finding that petitioner Thermofil Inc. violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating employee Thomas Singer and ordering his reinstatement with back pay, and said order will be enforced.

Enforcement of the Board’s order is therefore granted.

ENGEL, Circuit Judge, dissents.

ENGEL, Circuit Judge,

dissenting.

I would deny enforcement because there is, in my opinion, no substantial evidence to support the finding that the action of employee Thomas Singer was concerted. Rather than showing that he was acting on behalf of or as a representative of the other employees, the evidence shows at best that his complaints were shared by others but that his individual conduct was entirely spontaneous. This case, therefore, falls squarely within the holding of our circuit in *N.L.R.B.*v. *Guernsey-Muskingum Electric Co-op, Inc.,*285 F.2d 8 (6th Cir. 1960). *See ARO, Inc. v. N.L.R.B.,*596 F.2d 713 (6th Cir. 1979).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Phillip DIXON, Jr., a.k.a. Cheddar, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30139

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

SEPTEMBER 29, 2017

Stephan Alexander Collins, Jo Ann Far-rington, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jane Martinez, Law Office of Jane B. Martinez, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Phillip Dixon, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying in part his motion for return of property under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.,

Dixon claims that the district court erred by denying his motion for the return of $8,530. The district court appears to have denied Dixon’s motion, at least in part, because it presumed that this $8,530 was part of the $25,000 that Dixon forfeit*418ed under the criminal judgment. In fact, the $8,530 that Dixon sought to have returned was administratively forfeited prior to his criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, the district did not err by denying Dixon’s motion because the government has obtained title to the $8,530 and, therefore, Dixon has no claim to it. *See Omidi v, United States,*851 F.3d 859, 861-62 (9th Cir. 2017) (outlining the administrative forfeiture process). To the extent that Dixon claims that the government failed to provide him with proper notice of the administrative forfeiture proceedings or raises any other challenges to the administrative forfeiture proceedings that he did not raise below, we decline to consider these claims. *See United States v. Gilbert,*807 F.3d 1197, 1201 (9th Cir. 2015) (“As a general rule, a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.” (internal quotations omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
|   | (a) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                    |   |   |              |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------|
| By:    | /s/ Jacky K. Anderson   |   | Date:  | November 15, 2010 |
|   | Jacky K. Anderson       |   |   |              |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |   |   |              |
|   |                    |   |   |              |
|   |                    |   |   |              |
|   |                    |   |   |              |
| By:    | /s/ Blake M. Edwards    |   | Date:  | November 15, 2010 |
|   | Blake M. Edwards        |   |   |              |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |   |              |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JUNE 30,
1997 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          57,123
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    601,604
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          16,110
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            16,167
<LOANS>                                      1,863,177
<ALLOWANCE>                                     27,647
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,631,413
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,723,741
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            636,055
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           198
<OTHER-SE>                                     271,419
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,631,413
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 35,465
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,392
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                46,857
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              20,227
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,315
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           18,315
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,250
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,467
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,683
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.45
<LOANS-NON>                                     21,966
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                14,828
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                27,721
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,324
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               27,647
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            27,647
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Julius Sunshine, Appellant, against Harry W. Marsh et al., Constituting the Municipal Civil Service Commission of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Argued April 21, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*776
      *Abraham Zemlock*for appellant.

*Thomas D. Thacher, Corporation Counsel (Charles F. Murphy*and *Paxton Blair*of counsel), for respondents.

*777Order affirmed without costs, on the ground that the denial of a mandamus order to challenge the validity of the promotion of employees who are not parties to the proceeding was under all the circumstances disclosed in the record a proper exercise of discretion. We decide no other question. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
EXHIBIT 32.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the three month period
ended March 31, 2006 (this "report"),  of SPAR Group,  Inc. (the  "registrant"),
the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

         1. The report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

         2. The  information  contained in the report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
registrant.

                                        /s/ Robert G. Brown
                                        -------------------
                                        Robert G. Brown
                                        Chairman, President and Chief Executive
                                        Officer

                                        May 15, 2006

A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS  WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO SPAR GROUP,  INC.  AND WILL BE  RETAINED  BY SPAR GROUP,  INC.,  AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.



                                      Ex-3
Exhibit 13.1

| **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** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of WAVECOM S.A. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

|  | (i) | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated: April 8, 2008 | By:    |           /s/Ronald        D. Black                                              |  |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
|                      |   |           Ronald        D. Black                  Chief Executive        Officer |  |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

**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.**
#### In the Matter of NASSAU PRESS, INCORPORATED, Bankrupt. *LONG*ISLAND NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner-Appellant, Sidney GREGORY, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Nassau Press, Incorporated, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 21, Docket 30431.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Sept. 27, 1966.

Decided Oct. 13, 1966.

Bernard Jeffrey, Freeport, N. Y. (Mul-looly, Mullen & Jeffrey, Freeport, N. Y.), for appellant.

John G. Crowe (Ridgway, Ridgway *&*Slote, New York City), for appellee.

Before MOORE, FRIENDLY and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the opinion of Judge Mishler, 259 F.Supp. 666, E.D.N.Y.1966.
**Exhibit 31.01****CERTIFICATION**     I, W. Michael Long, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Homestore, Inc.; and     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.Date: April 27, 2006                 /s/ W. MICHAEL LONG   W. Michael Long   *Chief Executive Officer*