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



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13(a) OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of IRIDEX Corporation;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.
    
    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 changes 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 the 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 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; 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.
  By:
Name:
    
    /s/ LARRY TANNENBAUM

Larry TannenbaumTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer and Vice President,Administration(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Executive Officer,

As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.

I, Gerald L.
Storch, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended October 30, 2010 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 10, 2010



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/    Gerald L.
Storch             
|Gerald L. Storch                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Starsha M. SEWELL, a Natural Person and Resident of Maryland On Behalf of Herself and Her African American Son’s, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deborah K. CHASANOW, a Natural Person, acting as a Federal Judge In the United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1849

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 27, 2017

Decided: December 6, 2017

Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se.

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Starsha Sewell appeals the district court’s order returning various documents to Sewell because the case was closed. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we-grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Sewell v. Chasanow,*No. 1:16-cv-03256-JKB (D. Md. July 6, 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*
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 15, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00686-CV

MARGNUS IBE, Appellant

V.

PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15-CCV-055220

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 24, 2015. The notice of 

appeal was filed July 24, 2015. To date, our records show that appellant has not 

paid the appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in 

civil cases unless party is excused by statute or by appellate rules from paying 

costs); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207. 

On August 26, 2015, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing 
2

fee on or before September 7, 2015, or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant 

has not paid the appellate filing fee. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because 

appellant has failed to comply with notice from clerk requiring response or other 

action within specified time). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Donovan.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41352

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DESMON CHARLES EASTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-33-1

--------------------

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Desmon Charles Easter appeals his conviction for conspiring

to possess 50 grams or more of a mixture containing cocaine base

with intent to distribute. He contends that the indictment was

impermissibly vague because it failed to allege the dates of the

conspiracy with any specificity. Because he did not challenge

the indictment in the district court, this court reviews for

plain error. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 629-31

(2002). The date of the offense is not an essential element that
No. 05-41352

-2-

must be charged in the indictment. United States v. Lokey, 945

F.2d 825, 832 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, Easter has not

established that his substantial rights were affected by any

error in the date alleged on the indictment. See Cotton, 535

U.S. at 631.

Easter contends that the evidence is insufficient to support

his conviction because the Government did not prove at his trial

that all the conspirators named in the indictment were involved

in the conspiracy. He has not established that the Government

had a duty to prove the involvement of all other conspirators at

a trial where Easter was the only defendant. See United States

v. Hernandez-Palacios, 838 F.2d 1346, 1348-49 (5th Cir. 1988)

(defendant can be convicted of conspiracy even if his

codefendants have been acquitted); cf. United States v. Morris,

46 F.3d 410, 420-22 (5th Cir. 1995)(although Government required

to provide proof of the knowledge and participation of “each

alleged conspirator,” court reviewed evidence only of the

appealing defendants’ knowledge and participation).

Easter asserts alternatively that the failure to prove a

seven-person conspiracy, as alleged in the indictment,

constituted a fatal variance resulting in reversible error. He

has not established that he is entitled to relief on this ground. 

See Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 81 (1935). The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21.1


LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


Triangle Mezzanine Fund LLLP, a North Carolina limited liability limited partnership


Triangle Mezzanine Fund II LP, a Delaware limited partnership


Triangle Mezzanine Fund III LP, a Delaware limited partnership


New Triangle GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company


New Triangle GP, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company


ARC Industries Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation


Brantley Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation


Emerald Waste Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation


Energy Hardware Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation


Minco Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation


Peaden Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation


Technology Crops Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the unaudited
consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 1999, and the
unaudited statement of
income for the three months then ended contained in the report on
Form 10-Q/A
for the three months ended March 31, 1999 of Batteries Batteries,
Inc. and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,266
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (625)
<INVENTORY>                                      9,736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,428
<PP&E>                                           1,344
<DEPRECIATION>                                     199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,262
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,814
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,327
<SALES>                                         11,039
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,039
<CGS>                                            6,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,624
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    296
<INCOME-TAX>                                       146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                150
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       150
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-04-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-07-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-07-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             236
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      387
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,513
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,226
<PP&E>                                          27,543
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,449
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,708)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,804
<SALES>                                          2,299
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,033
<CGS>                                            2,289
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (14)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,110)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,110)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)


</TABLE>
#### Suzanne STEELE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-11814 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(April 7, 2017)

Suzanne Steele, Pro Se

David A. Hughes, Justin Robert Barnes, Alison Lardo Loy, Jackson Lewis, PC, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Suzanne Steele was an employee of Sears Roebuck and Co. for several years. She was terminated in 2009 and filed this lawsuit in 2013. Steele raised a number of claims in her complaint, including a claim that Sears terminated her based on her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The district court granted summary judgment to Sears on all of Steele’s claims, except for her ADEA claim. The court held a two-day bench trial on the ADEA claim, after which the court issued a final judgment in Sears’s favor. Steele, now proceeding pro se, appeals the final judgment.1 She argues that the district court erred in (1) finding that Sears terminated her for a reason other than age and (2) excluding the testimony of her proposed expert.

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record, we find that the district court committed no reversible error. First, taking into account all the evidence, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Sears terminated Steele for *877a reason other than age.2*See Crystal Entm’t & Filmworks, Inc. v. Jurado,*643 F.3d 1313, 1319 (11th Cir. 2011) (“After a bench trial, we review the district court’s ... factual findings for clear error.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Second, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of Steele’s proposed expert. *See General Elec. Co. v. Joiner,*522 U.S. 136, 141, 118 S.Ct. 512, 515, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) (holding that the abuse-of-discretion standard is the appropriate standard for reviewing a district court’s decision to exclude expert testimony). The proposed testimony was not relevant given that it concerned damages for emotional distress— damages that are not available under the ADEA. *See Munoz v. Oceanside Resorts, Inc.,*223 F.3d 1340, 1348 (11th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.

1

. Even construing Steele’s pro se brief liberally, *see*Tannenbaum v. *United*States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam), the brief does not contest the findings upon which the district court's summary judgment decision was based. Steele has therefore abandoned any challenge to the decision. *See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,*739 F.3d 678, 681-83 (11th Cir. 2014).

2

. To the extent that Steele challenges any of the district court's other factual findings, we conclude that such findings were not clearly erroneous.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statement of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part I, Item 1. of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          90,422
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    199,049
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               304,471
<PP&E>                                           9,645
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 518,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,268,241
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,030
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,216,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   518,557
<SALES>                                        116,986
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,986
<CGS>                                          124,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,953,513
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             426,295
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,387,221)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                (76,687)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,463,908)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)


</TABLE>
#### Benito Saenz FIRO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23115.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 11, 1966.

*160James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Woodrow Seals, U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for appellee.

Before WISDOM, BELL and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The District Court denied appellant’s motion, filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, to vacate sentence. Appellant was convicted on both counts of a two count indictment charging him with violation of the narcotics laws and sentenced to ten years. He was represented by retained counsel on the trial and did not appeal.

A previous motion under § 2255 was denied and no appeal was taken from the denial of relief thereunder. Appellant’s next motion under § 2255 was denied and this court affirmed the denial in Firo v. United States, 5 Cir., 1965, 340 F.2d 597. The principal point there considered is the basis for his contention here that the court’s refusal to require the government to identify its informer amounted to a suppression of evidence on the part of the government. We held then that appellant was not entitled to the identity of the informer and the question is therefore settled adversely to appellant.

 One of the counts of the indictment was based on a violation of Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 174, and the other on Title 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704(a). There was no inconsistency in the counts or in the jury verdict. The ten year sentence imposed jointly on the two counts was within the statutory limits for each offense. 21 U.S.C.A. § 174; 26 U.S.C.A. § 7237(a). Thus there is no merit in the contention that the sentence was improper. See Milam v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 340 F.2d 956.

Appellant also claims that the government knowingly used perjured testimony against him. There is no merit whatever to this assertion.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James H. Mackaness, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, certify that the Quarterly Report of IRIDEX Corporation on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 2, 2010 (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
(ii) 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 IRIDEX Corporation.



|                       |  |                                             
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: November 4, 2010
|                       | 
|By:                    |  | /s/ JAMES H. MACKANESS                      
|Name:                  |  | James H. Mackaness                          
|Title:                 |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                       |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)