alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 and in connection with the accompanying report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 that contains financial
statements for such period and that is being filed concurrently with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
the undersigned officers of Perficient, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies
that:





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.





Date: March
      4, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Jeffrey S. DavisJeffrey
      S. DavisChief
      Executive Officer and President





Date: March
      4, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Paul E. MartinPaul
      E. MartinChief
      Financial Officer
#### Antonio RHODES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A. MANSUKHANI, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6665

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 12, 2017

Decided: September 26, 2017

Antonio Rhodes, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Rhodes, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Rhodes v. Mansukhani,*No. 8:16-cv-02741-HMH, 2017 WL 1151999 (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2017; Mar. 28, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal- contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Opinion issued November 14, 2013.

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 00274
- CV

——————————— KRISTOFER THOMAS KAS TNER , Appellant

V. TEXAS WORKFORCE COMM ISSION AND ROSEHILL ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. DBA HOUSTON A DMIRAL SERVICES , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 165th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2011
- 76848

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Kristofer Thomas Kastner , ha s neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 20.1; see also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 51.207, § 51.941(a), § 101.041 (West 201 3 );2

Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme C ourt and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket
No. 07

- 9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in T EX
. R. A PP
. P . A pp. A § B(1). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant d id not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5; 42.3(c). We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<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>                                          21,125
<SECURITIES>                                     2,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,490
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,565
<INVENTORY>                                      8,974
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,096
<PP&E>                                          11,601
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,054
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,599
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,917
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           887
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,698
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,599
<SALES>                                         26,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,411
<CGS>                                           19,162
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,162
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,872
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,673
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,089
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,584
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,584
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
#### Henry LAGMAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Shelley NOBRIGA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-17068

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 14, 2016 *

Filed December 22, 2016

Henry Lagmay, Pro Se

*1002Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Henry Lagmay, a Hawaii state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with court orders his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, *Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.

Lagmay did not present any arguments in his opening brief suggesting that the district court abused its discretion. Thus, Lagmay abandoned the appeal of the district court’s judgments dismissing his action and denying his motion for reconsideration. *See Collins v. City of San Diego,*841 F.2d 337, 339 (9th Cir. 1988) (“It is well established in this Circuit that claims which are not addressed in the appellant’s brief are deemed abandoned.”).

Lagmay’s pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**


**CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350 and in connection with the accompanying report on Form
      10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 that is being filed
      concurrently with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the
“Report”), each of the undersigned officers of Perficient, Inc. (the “Company”),
      hereby certifies that:




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.








Date: August
                13, 2007
            By:
            /s/ John
                T. McDonaldJohn
                T. McDonaldChief
                Executive Officer




Date: August
                13, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Paul
                E. MartinPaul
                E. MartinChief
                Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James R. Lavelle, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.

|Date: August 16,2004 | By: /s/ James R. Lavelle
James R. Lavelle
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |                                                                                            
|                     |                                                                                            

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Curtis J. Parker, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, Cotelligent, Inc.s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.

|Date: August 16,2004 | By: /s/ Curtis J. Parker
Curtis J. Parker
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |                                                                                               
|                     |                                                                                               

---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10111

Summary Calendar

____________

Albert G. Hill, III, individually, and as a Beneficiary of the Margaret 

Hunt Trust Estate, derivatively on behalf of the Margaret Hunt Trust Estate, 

individually, As a beneficiary of the Haroldson Lafayette Hunt Jr. Trust Estate, 

and derivatively on Behalf of the Haroldson, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

William Schilling, individually and in his capacity as a member of the 

Advisory Board MHTE and a member of the Advisory Board of the HHTE; 

Ivan Irwin, Jr.; Alinda H. Wikert; Lyda Hill; Heather V. 

Washburne; Elisa M. Summers; William Herbert Hunt, in 

his capacity as the personal representative of the estate of Tom Hunt; Brett 

Ringle, Individually and in his capacity as a member of the Advisory Board of 

the MHTE; John W. Creecy, Individually and in his capacity as Trustee 

of the HHTE; Margaret Keliher, Individually and in her capacity 

as Trustee of the MHTE and a member of the Advisory Board of the HHTE; 

Margaret Keliher, Temporary Administrator of the Estate of 

Albert G. Hill, Jr., 

Defendants—Appellees,

versus

Marco Antonio Montemayor, Esq.; Kenneth Robert 

Stewart, Jr., also known as Kenneth R. Stewart, Jr., 

Movants—Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 1, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10111 Document: 00517053526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2024
2

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CV-2020

______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Kenneth Robert Stewart, Jr., and Marco Antonio Montemayor appeal 

from the denial of their motion to intervene. The district court determined 

that the appellants were not entitled to intervene as of right under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) because their request to intervene was not 

timely made. The district court likewise reasoned that the appellants did not 

show that they were entitled to permissive intervention.

The appellants have not addressed any of the district court’s reasons 

for denying their motion to intervene. Therefore, the judgment of the district 

court is AFFIRMED. See Sommers v. Bank of America, NA, 835 F.3d 509, 

512-14 (5th Cir. 2016); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The motion to vacate the judgment of the 

district court and the motion to expedite are DENIED. The appellants are 

WARNED that the filing of frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive

pleadings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include 

dismissal, monetary sanctions, and limits on their ability to file pleadings in 

this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. See Coghlan v. 

Starkey, 852 F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988).

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-10111 Document: 00517053526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2024
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gregory P. DAMM, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11093 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 9, 2017

Amanda R. Burch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

'Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gregory P. Damm pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to register as a sex of*355fender, and he received an above-guidelines sentence of 60 months in prison as well as a five-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Damm argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to appreciate that his homelessness made it difficult for him to register and placed too much emphasis on his criminal history.

If the district court has imposed a sentence that deviates from the guidelines range, reasonableness review requires that this court evaluate whether the sentence “unreasonably fails to reflect the statutory sentencing factors” set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). *United States v. Smith,*440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). “A non-Guideline sentence unreasonably fails to' reflect the statutory sentencing factors where it (1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” *Id.*

The district court gave due consideration to the § 3553(a) factors and committed no error when balancing them. *See id.*Damm’s argument that the district court should have differently balanced the § 3553(a) factors “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” *See United States v. Malone,*828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 137 S.Ct. 526, 196 L.Ed.2d 408 (2016).

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the twelve weeks ended June 23, l998
included in this report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 <F1>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-23-1998
<CASH>                                          45,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  167,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,500
<INVENTORY>                                     71,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               334,900
<PP&E>                                       1,348,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                 629,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,396,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          216,000
<BONDS>                                          1,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           200
<OTHER-SE>                                     617,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,396,600
<SALES>                                        433,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               433,000
<CGS>                                          244,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  244,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51
<FN>
<F1>Footnote to electronic filing only:  as presented,
data is rounded to the nearest $100 except for per
share data.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1792

PAUL COLLINS YONGO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE HONORABLE JOHN MCHUGH, in his official capacity as 

Secretary of the Army; DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Financial 

Management Service; J. HORNE, in his official capacity as a 

military pay technician; DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; THE HONORABLE ROBERT GATES; DEFENSE 

ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL SERVICES,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:10-cv-00220-F)

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: October 1, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Paul Collins Yongo, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Paul Collins Yongo appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. See Yongo v. McHugh, No. 

5:10-cv-00220-F (E.D.N.C. May 23, 2013). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Maria DELEON, also known as Jose DeLeon, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-10908 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 5, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Maria DeLeon, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Maria DeLeon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v.*Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). De-Leon has filed responses. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as DeLeon’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
#### Tyrone ELLIS Plaintiff-Appellant v. Patrick DRUMMOND, APN, East Arkansas Regional Unit Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-4565

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2017

Filed: August 10, 2017

Tyrone Ellis, Pro Se

Brent J. Eubanks, Humphries *&*Odum, White Hall, AR, for Defendant-Appellee

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Tyrone Ellis appeals after the district court1 adversely granted summary judgment in his *pro se*42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.

Upon careful review, we conclude that summary judgment was appropriately granted, as the record established beyond genuine dispute that Drummond did not disregard Ellis’s medical needs. *See Fourte v. Faulkner Cty., Ark.,*746 F.3d 384, 387 (8th Cir. 2014) (concluding that a deliberate-indifference claim requires showing that defendants actually knew of, but deliberately disregarded, objectively serious medical need); *Peterson v. Kopp,*754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (requiring that a grant of summary judgment be reviewed *de novo,*viewing record in light most favorable to non-moving party). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable D. P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
#### The State v. Dow.

Intoxicating liquors: nuisance: no argument: judgment affirmed.

*Appeal from Mahaska District Court*— Hon. J. K. Johnson, Judge.

Friday, December 16, 1887.

The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted on a charge of keeping a nuisance by using a building for the purpose of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors therein, and he appeals.

No appearance for appellant.

*A. J. Baker, Attorney-general,*for the State.

Rothrock, J.

The trial was had and judgment rendered in the month of December, 1885, and the appeal was taken to the June term of this court, 1886. No appearance has been made for the defendant. The attorney-general filed a transcript of the proceedings in the district court. An examination of the transcript discloses no grounds for a reversal of the judgment, and it is therefore Affirmed.