alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Johnny M. LAWRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie KRAHNE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16119

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

FILED October 3, 2017

Johnny M. Lawrence, Pro se.

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 **

Johnny M. Lawrence appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to prior state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion for default judgment. *DIRECTV, Inc. v. Huynh,*503 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lawrence’s motions for default judgment because Lawrence never properly served the summons and complaint on defendants. *See Crowley v. Bannister,*734 F.3d 967, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a,defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider the district court’s dismissal of Lawrence’s action for insufficient service of process because Lawrence does not raise this issue in his opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (“This court will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly raised and' argued in appellant’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

*505We do not consider the merits of Lawrence’s claims because the district court did not address them.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
MDU Communications International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2012 (the “Report”), I, Carmen Ragusa, Jr., Vice
President of Finance of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   | /s/ CARMEN RAGUSA, JR.                 | 
|------------------ | -------------------------------------- | 
|                   | Carmen Ragusa, Jr.                    
|                   | Vice President of Finance             
|                   | MDU Communications International, Inc.
|                   |                                       
|December 21, 2012  |                                       
|Totowa, New Jersey |                                       



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by MDU Communications International, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## Performance Payload Capacity FlightTime Up to 14.1 oz 1400 g Typically 16 to 22 minutes (depending on payload weight and other factors) 

## Flight Control System

Processor GPS Receiver 

## Components

Rotors

Motors Mount Flight Battery 

## Telemetry Radio

Frequency
Transmit Power ReceiverSensitivity Receive Sensitivity Protocol 32-bit Pixhawk with Cortex M4 CPU uBioxGPSwith integrated magnetometer 3DR Radio, 915 MHz

2 x CCW: 9.5 x 4.5" 

### I 24.1 x 11.4 em tiger motor multi-rotor; selftightening counterclockwise rotation 2 x CW: 9.5 x 4.5" 

### I 24.1 x 11.4 em tiger motor multi-rotor; selftightening clockwise rotation 4 x920 KV Integrated GoPro camera mountwith vibration dampener 3S 5100 mAh LiPo

915 MHz (FCC complaint; Europe and other regions may require the 433 MHzversion) Up to 100 mWat20 dBm (adjustable) 25mA -117 dBm MAVLinkTransmission Method 2-wayfull-duplex communication through adaptive TOM Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum {FHSS) Parallel/Serial UART interface {3.3 VDC) 

### Itransparent serial link Translation ErrorCorrection Corrects up to 25% ofbit errors Firmware Open-source SIKfirmware Software Requirements Configurable through Mission Planner and APM Planner Compatible Devices Android tablet with OTG (on the go) support Windows desktop computer Connectivity

Power Requirements Dimensions 

## General

Dimensions Weight Per Radio (Two Included): 1x Micro-USB port 1 x 6-pin DF13 connector 1 x RP-SMAforantenna 3.7 to 6 VDC {from USB or DF13 connector) 1.1 X 2.2 X 0.5"/26.7 X 55.5 X 13.3 mm

Height: 3.9"/100 mm Motor-to-Motor Dimension: 21.7"/550 mm With Battery: 2.8 lb /1.3 kg
Filed May 11, 1891.

#### Clarence M. Smith, App’lt, v. The Manhattan Railway Co., Resp’t.

Appeal from judgment of this court.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

LOUIS RODITE, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

AMBER CABOT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF 

MICHAEL CABOT, DECEASED, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 137 MM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2016, the Emergency Application for 

Reinstatement of Automatic Supersedeas on Execution of Judgment for Possession is 

denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2




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 Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: November 22, 2010
By:
/s/ Allen E. KahnAllen E. KahnChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concierge Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Concierge Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of Long Beach Gas Company, Inc., Appellant, against Milo R. Maltbie et al., Individually and as Members of the Public Service Commission of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Argued January 6,1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*Stephen Callaghan, Ralph Stout*and *Thomas A. Gaffney*for appellant with respect to payments made to E. L. Phillips & Co.

*Charles G. Blakeslee*and *John J. Donohue*for appellant with respect to item of $33,532.16.

*Gay H. Brown*and *George H. Kenny*for Public Service Commission, respondent.

*573Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

                        CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I, Paul C. White, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of deltathree, Inc.;


      2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 officer(s) 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) [reserved] / [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238
and 34-47986];


      c) 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


      d) 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 officer(s) 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: March 30, 2005


/s/ Paul C. White
--------------------------------------
Paul C. White, Chief Financial Officer
CYLINK CORPORATION

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Cylink  Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 28, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, R. Christopher  Chillingworth,  Vice
President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

              (1) the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
              13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  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  at the  dates  and  for  the  periods
              indicated.

Date: November 26, 2002                By:      /s/ R. Christopher Chillingworth
                                                --------------------------------
                                                R. Christopher Chillingworth
                                                Vice President of Finance and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                Cylink Corporation
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher Dewayne JAMES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11491 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

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

Christopher Dewayne James, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Christopher Dewayne James has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief 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). James has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate *380review. 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.
C.D.N. v. D.S.

2160705

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 19

- 00461

- CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

Trial Court No. 236

- 309611

- 19

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and W allach , JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### M ETROPLEX



### , LLC D 

### / B 

### / A 

### M ETROPLEX 

### C HRYSLER 

### D ODGE 

### J EEP



### R AM 

### F IAT 

### LLC, AND 

### C LARENCE 

### F OSTER AND 

### D ANIEL 

### W HITE



### , D ERIVATIVELY ON 

### B EHALF OF 

### M ETROPLEX 

### C HRYSLER 

### D ODGE 

### J EEP



### R AM 

### F IAT 

### LLC. , Relator s2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator s’ petition for writ of mandamus and is of the

opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator s’ petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

Pe r Curiam

Delivered : January 8, 2020
#### Buel A. Paradis, Appellant, *v.*Ethel A. Doyle, Respondent.

Argued June 18, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*506
      *Daniel E. Prior, Edgar S. Knox*and *Milton B. Knox*for appellant.

*Kenneth J. Dugan*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lottghran, Bippey, Lewis, Conway. Desmond and Thagher, JJ.
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, 2008, 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 27, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Vivek Y. Ranadivé                                 
|                        |  |  |  | Vivek Y. Ranadivé Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Juana GUTIERREZ-GARCIA Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 16-3919

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 7, 2017

Filed: August 7, 2017

Juana Gutierrez-Garcia, Pro Se

Scott Baniecke, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Bloomington, MN, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, Karen L. Melnik, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Juana Gutierrez-Garcia petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from a decision of an immigration judge (IJ), denying, protection under the Convention Against Torture as well as asylum and withholding of removal. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this court denies the petition.

The court concludes that the IJ gave an adequate explanation for the adverse credibility determination, the determination was supported by substantial evidence, and a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to reach a contrary conclusion. *See Fesehaye v. Holder,*607 F.3d 523, 526-27 (8th Cir. 2010).

The petition is denied. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Herbert Lewis, Appellant.

Argued October 19, 1943;

decided December 2, 1943.

*Paul S eider man, Edward J. Reilly, Nathaniel Kaplan*and *Victor L. Anfuso*for appellant.

*Thomas Gradoch Hughes, District Attorney (Edward H. Levine*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
#### Hernan LOPEZ-CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70035

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

OCTOBER 2, 2017

Peter Hurtado, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Oil, Annette Marie Wietecha, Trial,- U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

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 *

Hernán Lopez-Cabrera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S,C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, and review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely where the motion was filed over two years after the order of removal became final and Lopez-Cabrera has not established that his motion falls within any exception to filing deadline. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(i)-(iv).

Contrary to Lopez-Cabrera’s contention, the BIA did not mischaracterize the motion to reopen or fail to properly address his contentions. Accordingly the BIA did not violate due process in denying the motion. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien must demonstrate error and substantial prejudice).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
| Name      of Business                      |   | Doing      Business As                     |   | State      of Incorporation |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                                       |   |                                       |   |                        |
| Commerce      Bank / Harrisburg            |   | Commerce      Bank / Harrisburg            |   | Pennsylvania                |
|                                       |   |                                       |   |                        |
| Commerce      Harrisburg Capital Trust I   |   | Commerce      Harrisburg Capital Trust I   |   | Delaware                    |
|                                       |   |                                       |   |                        |
| Commerce      Harrisburg Capital Trust II  |   | Commerce      Harrisburg Capital Trust II  |   | Delaware                    |
|                                       |   |                                       |   |                        |
| Commerce      Harrisburg Capital Trust III |   | Commerce      Harrisburg Capital Trust III |   | Delaware                    |

----
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify that:








1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Concierge Technologies, Inc.;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 quarterly report;3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly 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; andc.
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; and5.
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 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 which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
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: February 17, 2005
By:
/s/ *Allen E. Kahn*Allen E. KahnChief financial Officer










Exhibit 31.1Page 1 of 1 Page