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

                              Three Months                   Nine Months            Dec 11,  1985
                              Sept 30 Sept 30           Sept 30     Sept 30    (Date of Inception) to
                              2001    2000                2001          2000        Sept  30, 2001

REVENUES                      $ -        $-                $-           $-      $-

EXPENSES                        -         -                 -            -       35,600
                              ---        ---               ---          ---      ------
NET LOSS                      $ -        $-                $-           $-      $(35,600)
                              ===        ===               ===          ===     =========

NET LOSS PER COMMON
   SHARE

   Basic                      $-         $-                 $-          $-
                              ---        ---                ---         ---

AVERAGE  OUTSTANDING
    SHARES

  Basic (stated in 1,000's)   465         465                465         465
                              ---         ---                ---         ---
```

```

                                                                    Dec 11, 1985
                                           Sept 30      Sept 30     (Date of Inception)
                                           2001        2000         to Sept 30, 2001
CASH FLOWS FROM
   OPERATING ACTIVITIES

   Net loss                                $-           $-          $(35,600)

       Adjustments to reconcile net loss to
       net cash provided by operating
       activities

     Changes in accounts payable            -             -            1,600
                                           ---           ---         --------

          Net Cash From Operations          -             -          (34,000)
                                           ---           ---         --------

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING
   ACTIVITIES
                                            -             -              -
                                           ---           ---         --------

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING
   ACTIVITIES

 Proceeds from issuance of common stock
                                            -             -           34,000
                                           ---           ---         --------

   Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash          -             -              -

   Cash at Beginning of Period              -             -              -
                                           ---           ---         ---------

   Cash at End of Period                   $-            $-          $   -
                                           ===           ===         =========
```
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Jon Garfield, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Clearant, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis annual report;4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financialreporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuerand have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or cause such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is beingprepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or its reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting.Date:March 31, 2008
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Douglas W. Kohrs, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Medical
Systems Holdings, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter 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 and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. Date: November 12, 2004 By:
    /s/      Douglas W. KohrsName:
    Douglas W. KohrsTitle:
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Albert STAFFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D13-1532

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 5, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON MOTION TO LIFT THE STAY OF MANDATE

Per Curiam.

We initially issued an opinion in this case reversing the trial court's order denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief and remanding for resentencing pursuant to *Atwell v. State* , 197 So.3d 1040 (Fla. 2016). We cited our opinion in *Michel v. State* , 204 So.3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) and certified conflict with *Stallings v. State* , 198 So.3d 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) and *Williams v. State* , 198 So.3d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Thereafter, we granted a stay of mandate pending the disposition of the conflict. The Florida Supreme Court subsequently quashed our opinion in *Michel* . *See* *State v. Michel* , 43 Fla. L. Weekly S551, 43 Fla. L. Weekly S298 (Fla. July 12, 2018). Appellant has now filed a motion to lift the stay of mandate and reinstate *882our opinion following the dictates of *Atwell* . In response, the State requests that we withdraw our *Michel* opinion and affirm the trial court's summary denial of Appellant's motion for postconviction relief.

We agree with the State and now lift our stay of mandate and withdraw our prior opinion in the instant case. We affirm the trial court's summary denial of Appellant's motion for postconviction relief pursuant to the supreme court's opinion in *Michel* . *See also* *Franklin v. State* , 43 Fla. L. Weekly S556 (Fla. Nov. 8, 2018) (reaffirming that *Atwell* is no longer good law and that Franklin's three 1,000-year concurrent sentences *with the possibility of parole* did not violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution or the United States Supreme Court's decisions in *Graham v. Florida* , 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010) and *Miller v. Alabama* , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012) ).

*Prior opinion withdrawn; affirmed* .

Ciklin, Conner And Forst, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6176

ALONZO A. BALDWIN,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL MCCALL,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (9:10-cv-01115-RMG)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alonzo A. Baldwin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alonzo A. Baldwin seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and the court’s 

order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. 

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). 

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 

advised Baldwin that failure to file timely and specific 

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review 

of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Baldwin has waived appellate review by failing to timely file 

specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit (23)(e)


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements and in the related Prospectuses:

     (1)  Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-120611) of Consumers Energy
          Company; and

     (2)  Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-76347) pertaining to Employee
          Savings and Incentive Plan of Consumers Energy Company;

of our reports dated February 22, 2006, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Consumers Energy Company, Consumers Energy
Company management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of Consumers Energy Company, included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005.

                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Detroit, Michigan
February 22, 2006
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 Annual Report of Delta Mutual, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel R. Peralta, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Daniel R. PeraltaDaniel R. PeraltaChief Executive Officer andPrincipal Financial Officer





February
28, 2012
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(4)
              - products_data(2)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(20)
              - (-)products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(3)
              - multimedia_image-141771(3)
              - multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(2)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - news_other_news(3)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(1)
              - american samoa(1)
              - arizona(1)
              - california(7)
              - colorado(2)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(3)
              - delaware(1)
              - florida(3)
              - georgia(2)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(2)
              - maryland(1)
              - massachusetts(4)
              - mississippi(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - (-)new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(2)
              - new mexico(1)
              - new york(4)
              - north carolina(4)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(3)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(2)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - rhode island(3)
              - south carolina(3)
              - texas(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(1)
              - vermont(1)
              - virginia(2)
              - washington(1)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

Interactive Map        November 4, 2019        Flood Inundation Mapper - New England
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the annual report of Patient Portal Technologies, Inc.
(the"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kevin Kelly, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to 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)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 Date:
April 14, 2008
 
 /s/
      Kevin
      KellyKevin
      KellyPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT ANTWON CORTEU OLLINS,

Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D21-320 September 15, 2021 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Michael P. McDaniel, Judge. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.

__________________________ Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549  FORM 12b-25  NOTIFICATION OF LATE FILING  Form 10-Q  For Period Ended: 03-31-2009 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ PART I  REGISTRANT INFORMATION __Etelcharge.com__________________________________________________________________________________________________ Full Name of Registrant __N/A___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Former Name if Applicable _124 Loftin Street, Suite 600_________________________________________________________________________________________ Address of Principal Executive Office (Street and Number) _Cedar Hill, TX  75104____________________________________________________________________________________________ City, State and Zip Code  PART II  RULE 12b-25(b) (b) The subject annual report, semi-annual report, transition report on Form 10-K will be filed on or before the fifteenth calendar day following the prescribed due date.  PART III  NARRATIVE Part III--Narrative Etelcharge.com is unable to file on time due to the resignation of our CFO.  We expect to be able to file within the extension period.  PART IV  OTHER INFORMATION (1) Name and telephone number of person to contact in regard to this notification Robert Howe 972-298-3800 x 11 (Name) (Area Code)  (Telephone Number) (2) Have all other periodic reports required under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Section 30 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 during the preceding 12 months or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such report(s) been filed ?   Yes _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (3) Is it anticipated that any significant change in results of operations from the corresponding period for the last fiscal year will be reflected by the earnings statements to be included in the subject report or portion thereof ?  No  Etelcharge.com________________________________________________ (Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter) has caused this notification to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized. Date  May 14, 2009__________________________ By ____//s// Robert M. Howe, III_______________ Robert M. Howe, III, CEO                     -1-
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

DANIEL WEBSTER WRIGHT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DOROTHY E. SWINGLE; J.

NEPOMUCENO, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-17275

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02349-MCEJFM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

David Webster Wright, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in connection with the frequency

FILED

SEP 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-17275

and manner in which he received pain medication. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Wright’s

medication delay claim because Wright failed to raise a genuine dispute of material

fact as to whether defendants were involved in or had any control over ordering

and stocking prescription medication and thus were responsible for its delay. See

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (no respondeat superior

liability under § 1983; plaintiff must show personal involvement in alleged

violations); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A person deprives

another of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an

affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act

which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff

complains.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted)).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the “crush and

float” policy claim because Wright failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact

as to whether the policy of crushing his medication into a powder and placing it in

water was chosen in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Wright’s health. 

See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058 (prison officials act with deliberate indifference
3 11-17275

only if they know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health); Jackson v.

McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996) (where defendant has based actions on

a medical judgment that either of two alternative courses of treatment would be

medically acceptable under the circumstances, plaintiff must show that the chosen

course of treatment was medically unacceptable and in conscious disregard of an

excessive risk to plaintiff’s health). 

AFFIRMED.