alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.2**

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Bernard N. Schneider,certify that:

6.               I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GlobalSCAPE, Inc., as amended;

7.               Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report, as amended, does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport, as amended;

8.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results or operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report, as amended.

9.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (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 andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b.              Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c.               Disclosed in thisreport, as amended, any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

10.         The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a.               All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b.              Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting

 

Date:   January 29,2007
|        |   | By: /s/ BERNARD N. SCHNEIDER |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|
|   |   | Bernard N. Schneider         |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer      |

 

----
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MARIO LOPEZ-VEGA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10246

D.C. No. 4:09-cr-01150-DCB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Mario Lopez-Vega appeals from the 84-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

FEB 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10246

Mario Lopez-Vega contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable,

given his difficult life and the impact violence, drugs, and alcohol have had on his

emotional and mental health. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court’s sentence is not

substantively unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007);

United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21.1

List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|   |  |                              |  |               
|-- |  | ---------------------------- |  | --------------
|   |  | Name                         |  | Jurisdiction  
|   |  |                             
|1. |  | Marchex Paymaster, LLC       |  | Delaware      
|   |  |                             
|2. |  | goClick.com, Inc.            |  | Delaware      
|   |  |                             
|3. |  | Marchex LLC                  |  | Delaware      
|   |  |                             
|4. |  | Marchex Sales, Inc           |  | Delaware      
|   |  |                             
|5. |  | Marchex CAH, Inc.            |  | Delaware      
|   |  |                             
|6. |  | Marchex CA Corporation       |  | Nova Scotia   
|   |  |                             
|7. |  | Marchex International, Ltd.  |  | Ireland       
|   |  |                             
|8. |  | Marchex Voice Services, Inc. |  | Pennsylvania  
|   |  |                             
|9. |  | Marchex Europe Limited       |  | United Kingdom
JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-11-01034-CV

NEW YORK PARTY SHUTTLE, LLC, Appellant

V.

JOHN BILELLO, Appellee

Appeal from the 151st District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2008-74793).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on August 

31, 2011. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible 

error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellant, New York Party Shuttle, LLC, pay all appellate 

costs.

It is further ordered that the appellee, John Bilello, recover from the supersedeas

bond filed by the appellant New York Party Shuttle, LLC, and its sureties, Party Shuttle 

Tours, LLC and C. Thomas Schmidt, the amount of the judgment rendered above against 

the sureties, including all interest accrued during the pendency of the appeal, as determined 

by the court below, up to but not in excess of the amount of the bond, after payment of 

which the sureties are released from further liability.
The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered February 21, 2013.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle. Opinion delivered by Justice Huddle.
#### In re ADOPTION OF A MINOR.

No. 11548.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 9, 1953.

Decided March 26, 1953.

*56Mr. Arthur L. Willcher, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. W. Edwin Cumberland and Donald Cefaratti, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Richard H. Love, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, BAZELON and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The case was here before in In re Adoption of a Minor, 1952, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 107, 194 F.2d 325. We then remanded because of the absence of a definite showing that the District Court had considered and reached a decision that the consent of the natural father to the -adoption, which consent had been withheld, could be dispensed with upon any of the grounds specified in the applicable statute, § 16-202, D.C.Code (1940 and 1951). Our decision left to the sound discretion of the District Court whether the record need be opened for further evidence. In the proceedings consequent upon the remand, 'now before us, the District Court disposed of the case on the record previously rhade. It is clear that this was done in the exercise of a sound discretion No contention to the contrary is made.

The adoption decree is now supported by sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recites that it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the consent of the natural father should be dispensed with for extraordinary cause shown, one of the statutory grounds. The evidence supports the findings and these, with the conclusions of 1-aw, support the decree. It is almost inevitable that the outcome of this difficult and trying case, as the court below characterized it, should not be satisfactory to the father; but we find no basis for setting aside the decree. It accordingly is

Affirmed.
Jeffrey CORNETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2574

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 12, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
K. J., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3560

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APR 30, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 09-14709

Non-Argument Calendar

_____________

D.C. Docket No. 08-00611-CV-1-CG

KEVIN MCLAUGHLIN,

REBECCA MCLAUGHLIN,

PHILLIP DUTT,

MCLAUGHLIN DUTT, LLC.

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

THE KRYSTAL COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

____________

(April 30, 2010)

Before BIRCH, MARTIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

This appeal is based upon the district court’s grant of a motion for summary

judgment filed by The Krystal Company (Krystal), against Krystal

licensees/franchisees, Kevin McLaughlin, Rebecca McLaughlin, Phillip Dutt and

McLaughlin-Dutt, LLC (appellants). The claims alleged by appellants arose when

Krystal declined to renew their license/franchise agreement. 

The pertinent facts are amply set forth in the Memorandum Opinion and

Order of the district court dated August 14, 2009. We have thoroughly reviewed

the record in this case, the briefs and the argument of counsel. Finding no error,

we affirm the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor

of Krystal.

AFFIRMED.

2
#### TATUM v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13550.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 14, 1953.

Writ of Certiorari Denied June 8, 1953.

See 73 S.Ct. 1125.

James Luther Tatum, in pro. per.

Edward Scrugg, U. S. Atty., E. R. Thurman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Phoenix, Ariz., for appellee.

*325Before MATHEWS and ORR, Circiiit Judges, and JAMES M. CARTER, District Judge.

MATHEWS, Circuit Judge.

In the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, appellant, James Luther Tatum, pleaded guilty to (1) an indictment charging him with violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312 on or about August 15, 1949, (2) an indictment charging him with violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 751 on or about October 22, 1949, and (3) an indictment charging him with violating 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312 on or about August 18, 1949. Thereupon, on November 28, 1949, the District Court entered (1) a judgment sentencing appellant to be imprisoned for three years on the first indictment, (2) a judgment sentencing him to be imprisoned for three years on the second indictment, to run consecutively with the sentence on the first indictment, and (3) a judgment sentencing him to be imprisoned for three years on the third indictment, to run consecutively with the sentence on the second indictment.

On June 9, 1952, while in custody under the sentences mentioned above, appellant caused to be filed in the District Court (1) a petition entitled “Petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum” and (2) a petition entitled “Petition for motion to quash, annul and make void sentences as made and provided for under Title 28, section 2255 U.S.C.A.” 1

The first petition stated that appellant was in custody of the warden of the United States penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. It prayed the District Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum requiring the warden to produce appellant before the District Court at the time of hearing the second petition.2 It did not pray for any other relief. The second petition prayed the District Court to release appellant from further imprisonment and punishment. It did not pray for any other relief. The stated ground of the second petition was, in substance, that the sentences ran concurrently and had expired. Actually, as the judgments clearly showed, the sentences ran consecutively and, had not expired. Accordingly, on July 14, 1952, the District Court entered an order denying the petitions without a hearing. This appeal is from that order.

The petitions and the files and records of the three cases wherein appellant was sentenced conclusively showed that he was entitled to no relief. There was, therefore,no error in denying the petitions.

Order affirmed.

1

. The petitions are in the record on appeal filed hero on September 19, 1952. The printed “transcript of record” contains a true copy of the second petition (including the title thereof) and a true copy of the body of the first petition but does not contain a true copy of the title of the first petition. As indicated above, the first petition was entitled “Petition for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum.”

2

. In the first petition, the second petition was called a motion.
----

|   | (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 Registrant. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Richard W. McCullough                          |   | January 14, 2011 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------|
| Richard W. McCullough                              |   |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer               |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |
|                                               |   |
|                                               |   |
| /s/ Gysle R. Shellum                               |   | January 14, 2011 |
| Gysle R. Shellum                                   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                            |   |
| Petroleum Development Corporation (dba PDC Energy) |   |
| Managing General Partner                           |   |

----
----

----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

| 1. | The                Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company at the end of the periods covered by the Annual Report. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                May 18, 2007 |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              | By:    |  /s/                *James                Price                                  * |
|                              |   | James                Price                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|                              |   | Chief                Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |

----
Exhibit 99.2











Report Of Independent

Registered Public Accounting Firm



Board of Directors

Structured Obligations Corporation

New York, New York



We have examined the compliance of Structured Obligations Corporation (Depositor) and U.S.
        Bank National Association (Trustee) with the Base Trust Agreement and the Select Notes Trust Supplement LT 2003-1 (the Agreements) relating to the administration of the underlying securities and related credit support deposited in or held by the
        Select Notes Trust LT 2003-1 for the year ended December 31, 2021. Depositor’s management is responsible for compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with the Agreements based on our
        examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
        (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with those requirements described above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
        We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination of Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with specified requirements.



In our opinion, Depositor and Trustee complied, in all material respects, with the requirements described above
        of the Agreements for the year ended December 31, 2021.



This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Depositor, the Trustee, the Securities and
        Exchange Commission, and the Certificate Holders of the Select Notes Trust LT 2003-1, and is not intended to be, and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties.









February 22, 2022















---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - science_education(1)
              - science_science(4)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(10)
              - multimedia_before_after(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - (-)multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_video(4)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(6)
              - arizona(2)
              - california(1)
              - florida(1)
              - georgia(2)
              - (-)louisiana(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - montana(1)
              - new york(1)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - tennessee(1)
              - utah(3)
              - washington(1)

## By Year

Satellite imagery        March 13, 2016        Serene Expressions
**EXHIBIT13.1****GRUPO TMM, S.A.****SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     I, Javier Segovia Serrano, the Chief Executive Officer of Grupo TMM, S.A. (the “Company”),hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:     1. the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005, to whichthis statement is filed as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofsection 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, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date:June 30, 2006         /s/ Javier Segovia Serrano   Javier Segovia Serrano   Chief Executive Officer
Pamela B. STUART, Appellant, v. Catherine S. RYAN and Deborah A. Stuart, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2388

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[October 18, 2018]

Pamela B. Stuart, pro se.

Charles Douglas Vitunac of Collins, Brown, Barkett, Garavaglia, and Lawn, Chartered, Vero Beach, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Damoorgian, Klingensmith AND Kuntz, JJ., concur.