alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Greg Taylor, Chief
Financial Officer certify that:  1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CytoGenix, 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;  5. The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
controls; and     6. The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  Date:  April 4,
2008  /s/Greg S.
Taylor Greg S.
Taylor Chief Financial
Officer
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**

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

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Pipeline Data Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSBA for the quarter ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), MacAllister Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and , Curt James, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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; and

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

 

|         |                                  |   |         |                                                                |
|--------------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:     | /s/ MacAllister Smith                 |   | By:     | /s/ Curt James                                                      |
| Name:   | MacAllister Smith                     |   | Name:   | Curt James                                                          |
| Title:  | Chief Executive Officer and President |   | Title:  | Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

Date: March 28, 2007

 [A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pipeline Data Inc. and will be retained by Pipeline Data Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]

 

75
#### Chas. S. Higgins *et al.,*App’lts, v. Jas. D. Bell, Com’r of Police, Brooklyn, Resp’t.

*Chas. Edward Soutter,*for app’lts; *F. A. McCloskey,*for resp’t.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 25 N. Y. State Rep., 501.
#### Ira Downs, Resp’t, *v.*The Central Vermont Railroad Co., App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,*

*Filed May 21, 1891.)*

Negligence—Pleading—Sufficiency of complaint.

In an action against a corporation to recover damages for negligence in killing a horse, the complaint alleged that the defendant was a corporation, and operated a railroad; that because it neglected to repair a certain fence, culvert and cattle-guard, which it was bound to repair, the plaintiff’s horse, without plaintiff’s fault, came on the track, and by reason of defendant’s negligence in moving its cars was killed. *Held,*that the complaint stated a cause of action, and sufficiently connected defendant with the injury.

Appeal from order overruling demurrer to the complaint

*Louis Hasbrouck,*for app’lt; *Shedden & Booth,*for resp’t

Learned, P. J.

This is an appeal by defendant from an order overruling a demurrer.

The action is to recover for the killing of a horse of plaintiff. It avers that defendant is a corporation and operated a railroad ; that by reason of its neglect to repair a certain fence on the side of the railroad at a point described, which it was bound to repair *229and by reason of its neglect to build or repair a certain culvert and cattle guard, also described, which it was bound to build and repair, the plaintiff’s horse, without plaintiff’s fault, came on the track and, by reason of defendant’s negligence in running its cars, was killed.

The defendant claims that the complaint does not allege facts and does not allege that defendant has done or omitted anything which caused the injury.

Undoubtedly the defendant is entitled to have the plaintiff allege the facts which constitute negligence and thus to show defendant’s alleged connection with the injury caused to plaintiff. This we have discussed at some length and decided at this term in *Toomey*v. *Albany, ante,*91. But in this case the plaintiff has alleged these facts, viz, the neglect to repair the fence and the neglect to build and repair the culvert and cattle guard. It may be that defendant claims that the mode of allegation is not positive; that is, that the plaintiff does not allege that defendant did not do these acts; but alleges only that by defendant’s neglect in not doing them the injury was caused. We do not think that criticism is sound. The object of pleading is to inform the opposing party of the matter on which the pleader relies. And undoubtedly the defendant is informed of the ground of - action in this case.

Whether the allegation of negligence in running the cars is sufficient to permit plaintiff to show any other negligence than that of neglecting to repair the fence and the culvert and cattle guard, we need not say. It is enough that we think a cause of action is set forth in the complaint

Judgment interlocutory affirmed, with costs.

Landon and Mayham, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brett W. ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-3037

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed October 17, 2017

Carrie N. Capwell, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brett W. Ellis, Pro Se

Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge

Appellant seeks a certificate of appeala-bility to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in a search of his residence and computers, Appellant pled guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced pursuant to a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to a below-guidelines sentence of seventy-two months. In his § 2255 petition, he raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, all relating to the unsuccessful motion to suppress.

*834The district court denied Appellant’s § 2255 petition in a comprehensive twenty-three page order, in which the court analyzed each of Appellant’s claims and explained why each claim failed to show constitutionally ineffective advocacy and/or prejudice under the Supreme Court’s governing *Strickland*standard. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

After thoroughly reviewing Appellant’s brief and the record on appeal, we conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court’s ruling. *See Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). For substantially the same reasons given by the district court, we DENY Appellant’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.

*

 This order 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.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Junior Thomas COTTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-4480

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Decided: June 30, 2017

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Junior Thomas Cotton appeals his 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012). Cotton challenges the district court’s calculation of his base offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(a) (2014), which establishes a higher offense level for defendants with a prior conviction for a crime of violence under USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2). Cotton argues that his prior conviction, which was deemed a crime of violence under the residual clause of USSG § 4B1.2(a)(2), is no longer a crime of violence in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015) (striking Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause in crime of violence definition as unconstitutionally vague). We rejected that argument in *United States v. Mack,*855 F.3d 581 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, Cotton’s challenge is foreclosed by our decision in *Mack.*

We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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*
----

----

|   | (i) | the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Annual Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date: March 28, 2013 | /s/ Gregory McCunn—————————————————————————— |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | Gregory McCunn                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|                      | (principal financial officer)                                                                                                                                                                            |

----

----
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

TERESA A. MCVICKER, P.C., Appellant,

v.

JOHN MCHUGH, Secretary of the Army, Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 1125

______________________

Appeal from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in No. 57653, Administrative Judge Jack De lman.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

R ALPH C. T HOMAS

, III , Barton, Baker, Thomas & Tolle, LLP, of McLean, Virginia, argued for appellant.

D OMENIQUE K IRCHNER , Senior Trial Counsel, Co mmercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued f or appellee. With h er on the brief were Stuart F. D ELERY
, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E.D AVIDSON , Director, and M ARTIN F. H OCKEY

, J R
., Assistant Director.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE

, S CHALL

, and R EYNA

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 17, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Date Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk
#### PEOPLE *v.*SMITH. SAME *v.*HALL.

Criminal Law — Obstructing Justice — Threat op Assault op Witness — Judge—Cross-Examination—Bonds.

Conviction of obstructing justice, in trial by judge without jury, where trial judge took over the burden of cross-examining the witnesses and accused and raised the bonds of defendants based on his belief that 1 defendant had threatened to assault 1 of the witnesses as part of the crime charged, *held,*error which denied defendants a fair trial in violation of due process provision of Constitution (Const 1963, art 1, § 17; CL 1948, § 750.505).

ItÉPERENCE POR POINTS IN HEADNOT®

21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 220, 222, 234, 235.

Appeal from Wayne; Weideman (Carl M.), J.

Submitted Division 1 October 5, 1967, at Detroit.

(Docket No. 2,050.)

Decided March 25, 1968.

William Smith and Nancy Hall were convicted of obstructing justice. Defendants appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

*189*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *William L. Cahalan,*Prosecuting Attorney, *Samuel J. Torina,*Chief Appellate Lawyer, and *Thomas P. Smith,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

*Arnold H. Monash,*for defendant Smith.

*Bell, Simmons, Gragg & Coon,*for defendant Hall.

J. H. Gillis, J.

Defendants, William Smith and Nancy Hall, were charged with haying committed the crime - of obstructing justice.* In a non jury trial the defendants were, on March 29, 1966, convicted of the crime as charged.

On appeal defendants raise several issues for our consideration; however, in light of our decision, we need only discuss the following issue: Did the actions, comments, and conduct of the trial judge preclude the defendants from having a fair trial in violation of the due process provision of Const 1963, art 1, § 17?

A complete reading of this transcript readily discloses that the trial court took over the burden of cross-examining witnesses and the accused in a fashion normally exercised only by the prosecuting attorney. Additionally, the court, prior to the termination of the people’s case and before the defense had an opportunity to rebut it, substantially raised the bonds of each of the defendants, based according to this record solely on the court’s belief at this point of the trial that the defendant Smith had threatened to assault one of the witnesses. The threat was alleged to have taken place some 6 months before, on a date set forth in the information. In fact, the alleged threat of assault was an *190integral part of the obstructing’ justice charge on which the defendants were then being tried.

Beversed and remanded for new trial.

Lesinski, C. J., and T. Gr. Kavanagh, J., concurred.

*

 CL 1948, § 750.505 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.773).
#### Russell K. HILL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. State of MISSISSIPPI, Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-60815 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 25, 2017

Russell K. Hill, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Russell K. Hill, Mississippi prisoner # L3506, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his motion to reinstate or reopen proceedings pertaining to his 2010 petition for writ of mandamus on the ground that the district court’s judgment denying the petition was void ab initio. In the petition, Hill requested that the. district court compel the Mississippi Supreme Court to file his state habeas application challenging his conviction and sentence for armed robbery.

The district court denied the motion to reopen and denied Hill leave to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that Hill’s appeal was not taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A). Thus, the instant motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).

Hill has not shown that his appeal involves legal points- arguable on their merits. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). His argument that the district court should have directed the Mississippi Supreme Court to consider his state habeas application is without merit, *see Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court,*474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973), and he has not raised a nonfrivolous challenge to the denial of his motion to reinstate or reopen proceedings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), as he has not shown that the district court lacked subject matter or personal jurisdiction or “acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law,” *Carter v. Fenner,*136 F.3d 1000, 1006 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted).

Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. Further, *428because “it is apparent that an appeal would be meritless,” *Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n.24, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Hill is CAUTIONED that future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive challenges to his conviction and sentence- will subject him to sanctions, including dismissal, monetary-sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. He should review any pending appeals and actions and move to dismiss any that are frivolous.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6602 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6602

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 relating to the review 
             of the interagency dispute resolution process.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REVIEW OF INTERAGENCY DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS.

    Section 1763(c) of the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. 
4822(c)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``In any case'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(1) In general.--In any case'';
            (2) by inserting ``countries subject to a comprehensive 
        United States arms embargo,'' after ``matters relating to'';
            (3) by striking ``may be decided'' and inserting ``shall be 
        decided'';
            (4) by adding at the end the following: ``The chair of the 
        Committee is authorized to decide any case or matter described 
        in the preceding sentence in which the Committee is unable to 
        decide the case or matter by majority vote.''; and
            (5) by further adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Definition.--In paragraph (1), the term `country 
        subject to a comprehensive United States arms embargo' means--
                    ``(A) any country listed on table 1 to paragraph 
                (d)(1) of section 126.1 of title 22, Code of Federal 
                Regulations (as such section is in effect on the day 
                before the date of the enactment of this paragraph); 
                and
                    ``(B) the Russian Federation.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6602

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 relating to the review 
             of the interagency dispute resolution process.
```
H. R. 6633 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9355 113th 

Street in Seminole, Florida, as the ‘‘Army SSG Ryan Christian Knauss Memorial 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ARMY SSG RYAN CHRISTIAN KNAUSS MEMORIAL POST 

OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 9355 113th Street in Seminole, Florida, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Army SSG Ryan Christian Knauss 

Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Army SSG Ryan Christian Knauss Memorial Post Office 

Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.