alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2CERTIFICATION     I, James E. Condon, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Tekni-Plex, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report (as amended) does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report (as amended) our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report (as amended) any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: February 22, 2008       /s/ James E. Condon     Name James E. Condon    Title Chief Financial Officer
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING LENOVO REQUEST TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER DENYING LENOVO 

REQUEST TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1072, 1100

After further reflection, the Court hereby DENIES Lenovo’s motion to seal the deposition 

testimony of Ira Blumberg. The information revealed in Mr. Blumberg’s testimony does not meet

the compelling reasons standard. Moreover, the deposition testimony and exhibits of Eric 

Reifschneider of Qualcomm at trial publicly stated that it was Qualcomm’s licensing practice to 

not sell chips to companies that did not have a Qualcomm license. The Court’s order to seal the 

exhibits introduced with Mr. Blumberg’s testimony remains as issued. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1110 Filed 01/04/19 Page 1 of 1
George EVANS, Appellant, v. Deirdre A. MURPHY, Appellee.

No. 3D18-948

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 27, 2019

Lehtinen Schultz, PLLC, and Claudio Riedi, Miami, for appellant.

Costello Law, LLC, and Joseph A. Costello (Fort Lauderdale), Plantation, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and MILLER, JJ.

EMAS, C.J.

George Evans1 appeals the trial court's order summarily denying his 2015 *441"Amended Motion for Relief from Order Dated December 2, 2013." The trial court denied the motion as untimely, "facially deficient and simply an attempt to re-litigate issues which were previously known and could have been addressed at the time the original order was entered."

We agree, and further conclude that the amended motion was barred by law of the case. *See**Evans v. Murphy*, 159 So.3d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ; *Suffolk Constr. Co. v. First Sealord Sur., Inc.*, 63 So.3d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) ("When an appellate court has decided a question of law, the decision of the court becomes law of the case. This doctrine prevents reconsideration of all issues necessarily decided in the former appeal").2

Affirmed.

1

We note, by way of background, that the action below began as a dissolution of marriage case in which Evans represented the former husband. During the pendency of the dissolution proceedings, Evans' client was ordered to transfer $ 300,000 (proceeds from a settlement of an unrelated civil suit) into Evans' law firm trust account, pending further order of the court. Later, the trial court ordered that $ 180,000 of those proceeds be deposited into the court registry. Evans failed to do so. Evans later acknowledged at a hearing before the trial court that he transferred those funds from his trust account without the trial court's authorization. Evans also failed to comply with the trial court's order to produce his firm's trust and bank records to account for the disbursement of those proceeds. Several hearings were held and orders entered relating to Evans' improper disbursement of those funds and his failure to comply with the trial court's orders. A more expansive description of the history of the case can be found in *Murphy v. Evans*, 96 So.3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Evans was eventually held in contempt, and was ordered to pay the former wife's attorney's fees and costs. Evans was suspended from the practice of law by emergency order of the Florida Supreme Court, and he later consented to a permanent disbarment following a referee's determination that Evans, inter alia, wrongfully disbursed funds from his law firm trust account to satisfy personal and business obligations. *See**The Fla. Bar v. Evans*, 77 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 2011) (table).

2

This is at least the fourth appeal taken by Evans from orders entered against him in circuit court case number 04-13059 FC 07. *See* 3D14-201; 3D13-2452; 3D10-2401.
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 Quarterly Report of Pharma-Bio Serv, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Elizabeth Plaza,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      my
      knowledge:





1.
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/
                Elizabeth PlazaElizabeth
                PlazaChief
                Executive Officer





June
      16,
      2008
----

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

|                                    |   | /s/      Thomas A. Vento                                                    |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                    |   | Name:      Thomas A. Vento                                                  |   |
|                                    |   | Title:  President      and Chief Executive Officer                |
|                                    |   |                                                                        |   |
|                                    |   |                                                                        |   |
| Date:  February      14, 2008 |   |                                                                        |   |
|                                    |   |                                                                        |   |
|                                    |   |                                                                        |   |
|                                    |   | /s/      Joseph R. Corrato                                                  |   |
|                                    |   | Name:      Joseph R. Corrato                                                |   |
|                                    |   | Title:  Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                    |   |                                                                        |   |
|                                    |   |                                                                        |   |
| Date:  February      14, 2008 |   |                                                                        |   |
#### Joe David BARNARD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. GREENVILLE COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Major Melton; James Dorriety, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 04-6385.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 6, 2004.

*161Joe David Barnard, Appellant pro se.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Joe David Barnard appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Barnard v. Greenville County Detention Ctr.,*No. CA-03-3822-8-20BI (D.S.C. Feb. 9, 2004). We deny Barnard’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JERRY RENE BUSH, §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-557-Y

§

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, §

T.D.C.J., Correctional § 

Institutions Division, §

Respondent. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Jerry Rene Bush under 28

U.S.C. § 2254, the Court has made an independent review of the

following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

February 24, 2006; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on March 8, 2006.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Bush’s

objections must be overruled, that the motion to stay and hold the

petition in abeyance should be denied, and that the petition for

writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed with prejudice, for the

reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions.

 In the alternative, the Court has considered Bush’s substantive claims for relief in the petition as follows: 

1. The sentence of 75 years exceeds the maximum sentence

allowed by law;

2. The sentence imposed exceeds the intent of the

legislature and violates the Due Process Clause;

3. The sentence violates the Eight Amendment’s ban on

cruel and unusual punishment;

4. Denial of effective assistance of counsel on appeal;

5. The indictment was defective; and

6. Denial of effective assistance of counsel at trial.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00557-Y Document 18 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 102
2

After review and consideration of Bush’s claims on the merits, the

Court concludes that Bush has not satisfied the standards to be

entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and (e)(1) for the

reasons set out in sections II and III, at pages 9-21 of the

respondent’s answer. Thus, the petition for writ of habeas corpus

is alternatively denied. 

 Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of

the magistrate judge are ADOPTED, such that Petitioner’s motion to

stay and hold the case in abeyance [docket no. 2] is denied, and

the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

In the alternative, all claims for relief in the petition for

writ of habeas corpus are DENIED. 

SIGNED March 30, 2006.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00557-Y Document 18 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 103
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P. v. Dana WILLIAMS

1151177

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

William James Akin, Appellant

No. 06-14-00178-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 336t h District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR-13- 24791). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant, William James Aki n, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 32.2



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 Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas R. Staab, II, Chief 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:



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: March 16, 2006 |  | /s/    THOMAS R. STAAB,
II                                               
|                     |  | Thomas R. Staab, II Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
**Exhibit32.1**

CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350  AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with thequarterly report of Reef Global Energy IV, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Mauceli, principalexecutive officer of Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P., the managing generalpartner of Reef Global Energy IV, L.P., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m OR 78o(d)); and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.
| Date: May 15, 2007 |   | Reef Oil & Gas Partners, L.P.        |
|--------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|               |   | Managing General Partner                 |
|               |   |                                     |
|               |   | By: Reef Oil & Gas Partners, GP, LLC |
|               |   |                                     |
|               |   | /s/ Michael J. Mauceli                   |   |
|               |   | Michael J. Mauceli                       |
|               |   | Manager and Member                       |
|               |   | (principal executive officer)            |

 

Thiscertification is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of thatsection.  This certification is notdeemed to be incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Actof 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that theCompany specifically incorporates it by reference.

----
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 10 

Electing Gary B. Myrick, of Virginia, as Secretary for the Majority of the 

Senate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 20, 2021 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Electing Gary B. Myrick, of Virginia, as Secretary for the 

Majority of the Senate. 

1 Resolved, That Gary B. Myrick of Virginia be, and 

2 he is hereby, elected Secretary for the Majority of the Sen3 ate. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
EX PARTE Drapher Oneal BONMAN

1161137 (CR-16-0453)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Helen J. SIMON, Petitioner, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-3364

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 4, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Christian PURSLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3350

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 28, 2019

Christian Pursley, Punta Gorda, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, EISNAUGLE and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

FILED

MAR 03 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

JACQUELINE ZHANG,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COUNTY OF MONTEREY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 18-15955

D.C. No. 5:17-cv-00007-LHK

U.S. District Court for Northern 

California, San Jose

MANDATE

The judgment of this Court, entered February 10, 2020, takes effect this 

date. 

This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule 

41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

FOR THE COURT:

MOLLY C. DWYER

CLERK OF COURT

By: Rebecca Lopez

Deputy Clerk

Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7

Case 5:17-cv-00007-LHK Document 82 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 1 Case: 18-15955, 03/03/2020, ID: 11615972, DktEntry: 43, Page 1 of 1
D.E. v. RUSSELL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160930

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

Affirmed.
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 332

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CV-14-914

JASMINE HOLLOWAY

APPELLANT

V.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF

HUMAN SERVICES and MINOR

CHILD

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered May 20, 2015

APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. JV-2014-129]

HONORABLE VICKI SHAW COOK,

JUDGE

SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM

ORDERED

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

Appellant Jasmine Holloway appeals from the Garland County Circuit Court’s order

terminating her parental rights to her daughter, G.H. On appeal, Holloway contends that the

circuit court erred in finding G.H. to be dependent-neglected, in finding aggravated

circumstances as a basis for terminating her parental rights, and in “fast-tracking” the

termination of her parental rights. We are unable to reach these arguments at this time because

of deficiencies in Holloway’s addendum.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A)(i) (2014) requires that an appellant’s brief

include an addendum consisting of all documents essential to the appellate court’s resolution

of the issues on appeal, including, but not limited to: the pleadings; all motions, responses,

replies, exhibits, and related briefs, concerning the order challenged on appeal; and the order
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 332

from which the appeal is taken. If we determine that deficiencies or omissions in the abstract

or addendum need to be corrected, but complete rebriefing is not needed, then we may order

the appellant to file a supplemental abstract or addendum within seven calendar days to

provide the additional materials from the record to the members of the appellate court. Ark.

Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4).

 In this case, the copy of the termination order found in Holloway’s addendum is

missing several pages. Specifically, record pages 45a, 45b, and 46a are not found in the

addendum. In addition, both Holloway and G.H.’s attorney ad litem filed responses to the

Arkansas Department of Human Services’ petition to terminate Holloway’s parental rights;

these documents, found at pages 156–59 of the record, are also missing from the addendum.

Accordingly, Holloway has seven days in which to file a supplemental addendum in

compliance with Rule 4-2(b)(4). We encourage counsel to review the Rules of the Arkansas

Supreme Court as well as the record and addendum to ensure that no additional deficiencies

are present.

Supplemental addendum ordered.

KINARD and HOOFMAN, JJ., agree.

Kearney Law Offices, by: Jeffery H. Kearney, for appellant.

Tabitha B. McNulty, County Legal Operations, for appellee.

Chrestman Group, PLLC, by: Keith L. Chrestman, attorney ad litem for minor children.

2
EXHIBIT 32.1


     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
     ---------------------------------------------------------------


The  certification  set forth below is being  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  solely for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and with Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the  United  States  Code.  Michael  Potts,  the Chief
Executive Officer,  Chief Financial Officer and Principal  Accounting Officer of
Armitage Mining Corp. hereby certifies that:

1. our Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB 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 our  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of Armitage Mining Corp.


Sincerely,

/s/ Michael Potts                                       Dated: August 3, 2006
-------------------------------
By: Michael Potts,
Chief Executive Officer,
President, Treasurer, Chief
Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer