alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Joshua D. RUPE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80356 (C/w WD 80357)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: January 30, 2018

Christian Lehmberg, for Appellant

Shaun Mackelprang, Jefferson City, for Respondent

Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick, Judge and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Joshua D. Rupe appeals the denial of his motions for post-conviction relief brought under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035 following an evidentiary hearing. Finding no error, we affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 11.1 Cordia CorporationComputation of Per Share (Loss) Earnings<R>For the Years Ended December 31,200720062005As RestatedNUMERATOR  BASICNet  (Loss) Income$   (3,805,741)$   (3,095,291)$   1,265,460Deduct: Preferred Stock Dividend--(212,415)Numerator for Basic (Loss) Earnings Per Share$   (3,805,741)$   (3,095,291)$   1,053,045NUMERATOR  DILUTEDNumerator for Basic Earnings Per Share$   (3,805,741)$   (3,095,291)$   1,053,045Add: Preferred Stock Dividend--212,415Numerator for Diluted (Loss) Earnings Per Share$   (3,805,741)$   (3,095,291)$   1,265,460DENOMINATORWeighted average number of common shares outstanding5,674,3975,602,3704,675,779Assumed conversion of preferred stock--1,104,584Assumed exercise of stock options--598,866Denominator for Diluted Earnings Per Share5,674,3975,602,3706,379,229Basic  (loss) earnings per common share$            (0.67)$            (0.55)$            0.23Diluted  (loss) earnings per common share$            (0.67)$            (0.55)$            0.20   </R>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-29-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-29-1999
<CASH>                                         144,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,924,466
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,104,080
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,507,260
<PP&E>                                       2,027,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,460,406
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,667,813
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           654
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,460,406
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,389,171
<CGS>                                       16,074,451
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,493,943<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               125,720
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (2,240,488)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,293,991)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (166,850)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,127,141)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 150,201
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,976,940)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.77)
<FN>
<F1>SG&A
</FN>


</TABLE>
Scott GOSS and Nicole Goss, Plaintiffs, v. SOLSTICE EAST, LLC, Defendant.

No. COA18-1158

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 20, 2019

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
      32.1




Written
      Statement of Principal Executive Officer Furnished Pursuant to


18
      U.S.C.
      Section 1350,


as
      Adopted by


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of HouseRaising, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory J. Wessling,
      Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition as of March 31, 2006 and results of operations for
      the
      quarter ended March 31, 2006 of the Company and its subsidiaries.






/s/
      Gregory J.
      Wessling


Gregory
      J. Wessling


Chairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
      Officer)





May
      15,
      2006





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 09-9374.

#### Chris Jackson, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1054, 130 S. Ct. 2357,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2992.

176 L. Ed. 2d 571,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 332 Fed. Appx. 973.
CHARLESTON

#### Central Trust Company *v.*Geraldine R. Green *et al.*

(C. C. 330.)

Submitted February 11, 1925.

Decided February 17, 1925.

Appeal and *Error*— After *Adjudication of Principles of Cause, Ruling on Demurrer Cannot Be Reviewed on Certificate.*

Where the principles of a cause are adjudicated, this Court has no jurisdiction to' review the ruling upon the demurrer on certificate, under Section 1, Chapter 135, Code.

Case certified from Circuit Court, Kanawha County.

Suit by the Central Trust Company against Geraldine R. Green and others. From a decree of the court of common pleas an appeal was taken to the circuit court, in which the decree appealed from was affirmed, and the court certified for review its action on demurrer to amended bill.

*Dismissed.*

*Poffenbarger, Blue & Dayton,*for plaintiff.

*Byrne, Littlepage & iAjnn,*for defendants.

Woods, Judge:

This cause is improperly here on certificate from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. The record shows that the cause was heard by the Court of Common Pleas of Kanawha County, on the bill, amended bill, demurrer thereto, and certain answers, and that the court on consideration thereof entered a decree adjudicating’ the principles of the cause. On appeal to the Circuit Court, the decree of the lower court was affirmed, and in the same order the court certified for review its action on the demurrer, under section 1 of chapter 135, Code. The principles of the cause having been finally adjudicated, both by the Common Pleas Court and the Circuit on appeal, the questions arising thereunder can only be brought here on appeal. This Court has no jurisdiction to determine the questions certified. *Heater*v. *Lloyd,*85 W. Va. 570; *Gas Company*v. *Shreve,*90 W. Va. 277; *Marks*v. *Mitchell,*90 W. Va. 702; and Lee v. *City of Elkins,*97 W. Va. 183, 124 S. E. 499.

*Dismissed.*
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Amy E. Miles, Chief Financial Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Regal Entertainment Group;

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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:



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 function):



Date:
November 8, 2005

| |  | By: |  | /s/AMY E. MILESAmy E. Miles
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
| |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00178-CR

TONY LYNN ROSE AKA TONY ROSE,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 355th District 

Court

of Hood County (CR14328)

January 19, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
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





In
      connection with the quarterly report of West Bancorporation, Inc. on Form 10-Q
      for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas R. Gulling, Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of West Bancorporation, Inc.,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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 conditions and results of operations of West
      Bancorporation, Inc.


May
                4,
                2007/s/ Douglas R. GullingDouglas
                R. GullingExecutive
                  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-15(e), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT**

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

I, Ihab Abu-Hakima, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Meru Networks, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 allmaterial 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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) Designed suchdisclosure 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 usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness 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 onsuch evaluation; and 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officerand 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 equivalentfunctions): 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Dated: May 11, 2010
No. 09-9628.

#### Donalt Yovani Martinez-Martinez, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1082, 130 S. Ct. 2126,

176 L. Ed. 2d 748,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3177.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 584.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY EX REL: STATE of Alabama o.b.o.: Alisha Lee v. Clifford LEE

No. 213P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

C. Leon Lee, II, for Lee, Clifford (aka C. Leon Lee, II )

Ben Logan Roberts, Attorney at Law, for Cumberland County (ex rel)

Roxanne C. Garner, Attorney at Law, for Cumberland County (ex rel)

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th of June 2019 by Plaintiff (Cumberland County) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         207,423
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 207,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (157,529)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   207,423
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,602
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,198
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,404
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,404
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,404
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>REGISTRANT HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
</FN>


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas T. DILLARD, Jr.,

No. 88P19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 6, 2019

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Michael Bonfoey, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Thomas T. Dillard, Jr., for Dillard, Thomas T. (Jr.).

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 14th of March 2019 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is *533hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of June 2019."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of March 2019 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of June 2019."
Exhibit
15.1




RSM
Richter LLP
 
   RSM
      Richter LLP Comptables agréés
                Chartered
      Accountants
                2,
      Place Alexis Nihon
                Montréal
      (Québec) H3Z 3C2
                Téléphone
      / Telephone : (514) 934-3400
                Télécopieur
      / Facsimile : (514) 934-3408
                www.rsmrichter.com
    
  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  To the
Board of Directors of Copernic Inc.
 
 
 We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (No. 333-102792) and the Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-117794)
of Copernic Inc. of our Auditors’ Report dated March 27, 2009, which appear in
this Annual Report to shareholders on Form 20-F.
 
 
 s/s RSM
Richter LLP
 Chartered
Accountants
  Montreal,
Canada
 March 27,
2009
No. 09-9978.

#### Arturo Villasenor, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1115, 130 S. Ct. 2425,

176 L. Ed. 2d 938,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3857.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 08-1423.

#### Costco Wholesale Corporation, Petitioner v. Omega, S.A.

559 U.S. 1066, 130 S. Ct. 2089,

176 L. Ed. 2d 720,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3424.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.

Same case below, 541 F.3d 982.
No. 09-9717.

#### Juan Lahera, Petitioner v. The Walt Disney Company, et al.

559 U.S. 1084, 130 S. Ct. 2133,

176 L. Ed. 2d 752,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3154,

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32


                            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 Seasons Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned,  who  are  the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
respectively, of the Company, hereby each certify as follows:

     (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 operation of the
Company.

/s/  John Ketner
------------------------
John Ketner, C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)


/s/  Nita Elliott
--------------------------------
Nita Elliott
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

May 14, 2004

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


<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2252

ALEHUBEL TESHOME,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A72-378-084)

Submitted: October 29, 2003 Decided: December 15, 2003

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mikre-Michael Ayelle, Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Peter

D. Keisler, Assistant United Attorney General, Emily Radford,

Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Mark B.

Stern, Alisa B. Klein, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Alehubel Teshome, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board).

The order denied his motion to reconsider the Board’s dismissal of

his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s order denying his

applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have

reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board

did not abuse its discretion in denying Teshome’s motion to

reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2003). Accordingly, we deny

the petition for review on the reasoning of the Board. See In re:

Teshome, No. A72-378-084 (BIA Oct. 3, 2002). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GENETIC VETERINARY SCIENCES, INC., DBA 

PAW PRINTS GENETICS,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LABOKLIN GMBH & CO. KG, THE UNIVERSITY OF 

BERN,

Defendants-Appellants

______________________

2018-2056

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 2:17-cv-00108-HCMDEM, Senior Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr.

______________________

SUA SPONTE

______________________

Before WALLACH, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Before the court is the parties’ August 6, 2019 joint response to this court’s order to show cause. The parties have 
2 GENETIC VETERINARY SCIENCES v. LABOKLIN GMBH & CO. KG

requested the redaction of certain material that they have 

identified as confidential business information. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The opinion issued under seal on July 29, 2019 is 

hereby unsealed in part with the remaining sealed portions 

modified to omit confidential information from the public 

opinion. 

 FOR THE COURT

 August 9, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court