alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 ENTRADA NETWORKS, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 RULE 13-A-14 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I, Davinder Sethi, Ph. D., certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Entrada Networks, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4.  The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 functions):
 
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 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:  June 14, 2004
 
 /s/ Davinder Sethi
 Davinder Sethi, Ph. D.
 Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
      Name of Subsidiary                          Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization
      ------------------                          ---------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                 <C>
1.  LCC Design Services, L.L.C.                                       Delaware

2.  LCC Europe GmbH                                                   Germany

3.  Eurofon de France S.A.R.L.                                        France

4.  LCC, United Kingdom, Ltd.                                         United Kingdom

5.  LCC Development Company, L.L.C.                                   Delaware

6.  Microcell Management Inc.                                         Delaware

7.  LCC do Brazil Ltda.                                               Brazil

8.  Koll Telecommunications Services, L.L.C                           Delaware

9.  LCC Asia Pacific LTD PTE                                          Singapore

10. LCC Europe AS                                                     Norway

11. LCC International Holdings NL, Inc.                               Delaware

12. LCC International Holdings, Belgium, Inc.                         Delaware
</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3661

___________________________

Victor Ali Barakat

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner - Appellant

v.

Scott P. Fisher

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent - Appellee

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: May 2, 2014

Filed: May 7, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Federal inmate Victor Barakat appeals from an order of the District Court

1

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged a decision of the

Bureau of Prisons to deny his request for a twelve-month placement in a Residential

Reentry Center (RRC). This appeal is moot, however, because Barakat was

transferred to an RRC during the pendency of this appeal, and thus the court can no

longer grant him the relief he requested. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150

(1996) (per curiam) (noting that when an event occurs during the pendency of an

appeal that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief, the court

should dismiss the appeal as moot). As for Barakat’s request that the remainder of

his sentence be vacated, such relief is not available through a § 2241 petition. See

Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 711 (8th Cir. 2002) (noting that while a prisoner

may attack the execution of his sentence in a § 2241 petition in the district of

incarceration, a challenge to the validity of the underlying sentence is properly raised

in motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the district of the sentencing court). 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. 

______________________________

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Steven E.

Rau, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-
#### In the Matter of Taurean Haywood, Petitioner, v Robert A. Kirkpatrick, Superintendent, Wende Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[945 NYS2d 896]

Proceeding pursuant to CPBR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [M. William Boiler, A.J.], entered August 17, 2011) to review a determination of respondent. The determination found after a Tier II hearing that petitioner had violated various inmate rules.

It is hereby ordered that said proceeding is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see Matter of Free v Coombe,*234 AD2d 996 [1996]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Bindley and Martoche, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51064
TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY; BOYD L RICHIE, in his capacity as Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ROGER WILLIAMS, in his capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Texas Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:07-CV-115
Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * We have reviewed the briefs, pertinent portions of the record, and the applicable law and have heard the arguments ofcounsel. We find no reversible error in the district court’s grant of summary judgment, especially in the light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 128 S. Ct. 1610 (2008), which c onfirms that the district court United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D July 30, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-51064

2 appropriately applied the balancing test ofAnderson v. Celebrezze , 460 U.S. 780 (1983), and Burdick v. Takushi , 504 U.S. 428 (1992), tothe constitutional claims raised. The summary judgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its well-considered opinion.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1723 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise 

Form S–1 so as to permit smaller reporting companies 

to use forward incorporation by reference for such form. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1723 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Company Simple 

3 Registration Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FORWARD INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE FOR 

5 FORM S–1. 

6 Not later than 45 days after the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission 

8 shall revise Form S–1 so as to permit a smaller reporting 

9 company (as defined in section 230.405 of title 17, Code 

10 of Federal Regulations) to incorporate by reference in a 

11 registration statement filed on such form any documents 

12 that such company files with the Commission after the ef13 fective date of such registration statement. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 14, 2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Denise Subramaniam 

Self-represented 

13865 SW Walker Rd 

Beaverton OR 97005 

503-764-5300 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

LNV CORPORATION Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-01836 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM 

pro per 

Defendant 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF STAY 

FOR MEDICAL NEED 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF STAY FOR MEDICAL NEED 

I. Here comes Defendant Denise Subramaniam, representing herself, and hereby motions 

this court for an extension of the April 7, 2015 stay ordered by the court and states the following: 

2. Surgery was performed on Defendant on March 17, 2015. A photograph of the incision 

taken approximately a week afterwards is attached as Defendant's Exhibit A herein. Also 

attached herein is Defendant's affidavit in support of this motion. 

3. Defendant has been, and continues to be, unable to function sufficiently to defend herself 

in this matter. She was incapacitated for approximately two weeks by the strong painkillers and 

other medications prescribed after surgery. See Defendant's Exhibit B attached herein. 

4. Defendant cannot sit or stand for periods longer than twenty (20) minutes at a time, and 

cannot drive until the effect of the drugs wears off, and her neck muscles heal sufficiently. 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 40 Filed 04/07/15 Page 1 of 2
5. Due to these conditions Defendant only realized on Thursday April 2, 2015 that the April 

7, 2015 deadline was looming. Friday April 3, 2015 was Good Friday. With her medical 

limitations preparation of this motion and its exhibits were time consuming and painful, and it 

was impossible to get anything from her physicians for the court within this time frame. 

6. A denial of an extension of the stay sufficient enough for her to recover from her surgery 

so she can perform the tasks required to research, write and file legal documents pertinent to her 

defense would amount to a denial of her right to due process and equal protection of law under 

the fifth and fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 

7. Defendant's first post-operative examination by her surgeon is scheduled for April27, 

2015. THEREFORE Defendant motions for an extension of the stay until after this date. 

PRAYER 

8. WHEREFORE Defendant prays this court grant for due cause an extension of the stay 

from April 7, 2015 to at least May 4, 2015. This would allow Defendant's surgeon, Dr. 

Sandquist, time to assess her recovery status and determine whether more time is required for 

recovery; and can accordingly provide the court with an affidavit if required at that time. 

Respectfully, 

Denise Subramaniam 

Page 2 of 2 

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 40 Filed 04/07/15 Page 2 of 2
RYDER SCOTT COMPANY                                           Fax (713) 651-0849
PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
1100 Louisiana  Suite 3800   Houston, Texas 77002-5218  Telephone (713) 651-9191







                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING FIRM
                        AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ANNUAL REPORT


     We consent to the  reference to our name  included in this Annual Report on
Form  10-K405/A for the year ended  December 31, 1997 for Geodyne  Energy Income
Limited Partnership II-D.


                                          //s// Ryder Scott Company
                                                 Petroleum Engineers

                                          RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                          PETROLEUM ENGINEERS




Houston, Texas
July 27, 1998
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 Appian,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Steven
R. Fey,  Principal  Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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/ STEVEN R. FEY
------------------------------
Steven R. Fey
Principal Accounting Officer
July 13, 2005

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement 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.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH ALEXANDRAVICUS, DECEASED.

*Mr. Jesse Mosicowilz*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Abraham Miller*and *Mr. Abraham J. Slurzberg*for the respondents.

March 13, 1961.

Granted.
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1958

To suspend temporarily the duty on ferroniobium.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 20, 1998

Mr. SANTORUM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on ferroniobium.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON

4 FERRONIOBIUM.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

8 new subheading:

‘‘ 9902.72.02 Ferroniobium

(provided for in

subheading

7202.93.00) ......... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2002 ’’.
2

•S 1958 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49046-49047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18818]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[212A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]


Indian Gaming; Approval of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact 
in the State of Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the approval of Third Amendment to the 
Tribal-State Compact (Amendment) for Class III Gaming between the 
Spokane Tribe (Tribe) and the State of Washington (State).

DATES: The amendment takes effect on September 1, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f888998d9499d690998a8cb89a9199d69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f28293879e93dc9a938086b2909b93dc959d84">[email protected]</span></a>, (202) 
219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by 25 CFR 293.4, all 
compacts and amendments are subject to review and approval by the 
Secretary. The Amendment authorizes the Tribe to engage in sports 
wagering at the Tribe's class III gaming facility, updates the Compact 
to reflect this change in various sections, and

[[Page 49047]]

incorporates Appendix S, Sports Wagering. The Amendment is approved.

Bryan Newland,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2021-18818 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4337-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-20-2007

Johnson v. Knorr

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 05-5029

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Johnson v. Knorr" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1538.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1538
PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

 ___________

 

Nos. 05-5029 and 05-5139

 ____________ 

 

GAMAL JOHNSON,

Appellant in No. 05-5029

v.

PAROLE AGENT DAVID KNORR, INDIVIDUALLY & AS A PAROLE 

OFFICER FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNA.; 

PAROLE AGENT WILLIAM JONES INDIVIDUALLY & AS A

PAROLE OFFICER FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNA.;

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNA. DEPT. OF PROBATION 

& PAROLE; POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE

INDIVIDUALLY & AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY 

OF PHILADELPHIA; POLICE OFFICER RICHARD ROE 

INDIVIDUALLY & AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY 

OF PHILADELPHIA; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

 

GAMAL JOHNSON

v.

PAROLE AGENT DAVID M. KNORR, INDIVIDUALLY & AS A PAROLE 

OFFICER FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNA.; 

PAROLE AGENT WILLIAM JONES, INDIVIDUALLY & AS A 

PAROLE OFFICER FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNA.;

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF PROBATION 

AND PAROLE; POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, 

INDIVIDUALLY & AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY 

OF PHILADELPHIA; POLICE OFFICER RICHARD ROE, 

INDIVIDUALLY & AS A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY 
2

OF PHILADELPHIA; CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

David Knorr,

Appellant in No. 05-5139

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 01-03418)

Honorable Legrome D. Davis, District Judge

 

Argued November 9, 2006

BEFORE: SLOVITER, CHAGARES, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Filed: February 14, 2007)

 

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

 

It is hereby ordered that the citation to “n.15” is changed to “n.14” in the third line

in footnote 8 on page 10 in the slip opinion in this case.

By the court,

 /s/ Morton I. Greenberg 

 Circuit Judge

DATED: February 20, 2007

par/cc: Martin Stanshine, Esq.

 Mia Carpiniello, Esq.

 John G. Knorr, III, Esq.
#### Temitayo O. OLOFINJANA, Petitioner v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-60647

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 29, 2007.

Willie James Wheaton, Law Offices of Willie J. Wheaton, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Temitayo O. Olofinjana petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of his motion to reconsider its order affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his request for a continuance. The respondent argues that this court is without jurisdiction because Olofinjana was ordered removed as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. The respondent further contends that the denial of a continuance does not involve a constitutional claim or a question of law which would give this court jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

The denial of a continuance implicates due process where an alien shows good cause for the continuance. *See Ali v. Gonzales,*440 F.3d 678, 680 (5th Cir.2006); *Patel v. U.S., I.N.S.,*803 F.2d 804, 806-07 (5th Cir.1986). Therefore, Olofinjana’s argument that the denial of a continuance violated his due process rights because he showed good cause presents a constitutional claim over which we have jurisdiction. *See*§ 1252(a)(2)(D).

*397This court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. *Lara v. Trominski,*216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir.2000); *Osuchukwu v. INS,*744 F.2d 1136, 1141-42 (5th Cir.1984). An IJ may grant a continuance upon a showing of good cause. *Witter v. INS,*113 F.3d 549, 555-56 (5th Cir.1997). Olofinjana argues that a pending 1-130 petition constitutes good cause for a continuance. However, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(c) prohibits the approval of a petition if the Attorney General has determined that an alien entered into a marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The evidence showed that two prior petitions filed on Olofinjana’s behalf were denied based on a finding of fraud regarding the marriage upon which the petitions were based. Thus, Olofinjana did not show good cause for a continuance. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Olofinjana’s motion to reconsider its decision affirming the IJ’s denial of a continuance. Olofinjana’s petition for review is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.