alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Mak Wai Keung, Shawn,certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Centiv, Inc;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     TheCompany’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [language omitted pursuant to SEC Release34-47986] for the Company and have:

 

(a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)   [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release 34-47986];

 

(c)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d)   Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.     The Company’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of theCompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  August 20, 2004                       |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |
| /s/  Mak Wai Keung, Shawn                    |   |
| President,  Chief Executive Officer, and Director |

 

1

----
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 131057 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131057 COA: 269268 Genesee CC: 92-047885-FC JERRY DENNIS PARPART, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the April 7, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

d1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
Motion Denied as Moot, Appeal Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed 

October 23, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-00776-CV

DARRELL J. HARPER, Appellant 

V.

HARRIS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR COLLECTOR, ANN HARRIS 

BENNETT, AND HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, CHIEF 

APPRAISAL, ROLAND ALTINGER, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 165th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-77474 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Appellant has been declared a vexatious litigant and is prohibited from filing 

new litigation in a Texas state court without permission from the local administrative 

judge.1 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.102. He filed the underlying suit 

 

1 The vexatious-litigant order was signed on January 20, 2014, by the 201st District Court 

of Travis County in cause number D-1-GN-14-004334. The order was subsumed by the final 
2

without obtaining permission from the local administrative judge. Appellee Ann 

Harris Bennett, in her official capacity as Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector, 

filed a notice of mistakenly-filed vexatious litigation and motion to stay and dismiss. 

Appellant responded by seeking permission from the administrative judge to proceed 

with his civil suit. Describing appellant’s response as “rambling laundry lists of 

complaints that are virtually indecipherable,” the administrative judge denied 

appellant’s request on August 13, 2018. The order of denial states appellant “may 

appeal this decision by writ of mandamus to an appellate court.” 

Appellant now attempts to appeal the administrative judge’s order. An order 

denying a vexatious litigant permission to file suit “is not grounds for appeal, except 

that the litigant may apply for a writ of mandamus with the court of appeals not later 

than the 30th day after the date of the decision.” Id. § 11.102(f). 

On October 10, 2018, this court notified the parties of its intention to dismiss 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless a response was filed showing meritorious 

grounds for continuing the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant’s responses 

do not demonstrate that we have jurisdiction to hear his appeal. 

The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant’s motion, filed 

September 14, 2018, regarding the clerk’s record is DENIED AS MOOT. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Brown. 

 

judgment, signed on May 29, 2015. The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, expressly 

concluding it had no basis to reverse the vexatious-litigant declaration. Harper v. State, No. 03-

15-00405-CV, 2016 WL 4628067 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 30, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
**906 CERTIFICATION OF CERTIFYING OFFICER**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Yearly Report On Form 10-KSB of Bytewatch Technologies, Inc. for the Year Ended December 31, 2005, I, Richard Plotnikoff, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bytewatch Technologies, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

1.  Such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bytewatch Technologies, Inc.

 

Dated:  May 18, 2006

 

BYTEWATCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

By: */s/ Richard Plotnikoff*

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
1

IF-352

 (Rev. 03/10)

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES COURTS

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20544 Date: 1/21/11

GUIDE TO JUDICIARY POLICY

TRANSMITTAL 07-002 VOLUME/PART 7A CHAPTER(S) 4

TO: Judges, United States Courts of Appeals

Judges, United States District Courts

United States Magistrate Judges

Circuit Executives

Federal Public/Community Defenders

District Court Executives

Clerks, United States Courts of Appeals

Clerks, United States District Courts

Chief Probation Officers

Chief Pretrial Services Officers

Senior Staff Attorneys

Chief Preargument/Conference Attorneys

Circuit Librarians

FROM: James C. Duff 

RE: DEFENDER SERVICES

This transmittal provides notice of a new appendix in the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 7 (Defender

Services), Pt. A (Guidelines for Administering the CJA and Related Statutes):

Chapter 4 – Defender Organizations

Appendix 4B – Model Code of Conduct for Federal Community Defender Employees

The model code in Appendix 4B was approved by the Judicial Conference Committee on Defender Services

in June 2010 and by the Judicial Conference in September 2010. Chapter 4 was amended accordingly, as

indicated in the Redline Comparison below.

Questions regarding this transmittal may be directed to the AO Office of Defender Services, Legal and

Policy Branch Duty Day Attorney, at 202-502-3030.
2

REDLINE COMPARISON REFLECTING CHANGES

§ 420.20 Community Defender Organizations

[. . .]

(c) A Model Code of Conduct for Federal Community Defender Employees is set forth in Appx

4B. Unless a variance from one or more of the Model Code's provisions is sought from, and

approved by, the AO's Office of Defender Services, the community defender organization's

board of directors must adopt the Model Code of Conduct as set forth in Appx 4B and make it

applicable to all of the community defender organization's employees. See: Clause 22 of

Appx 4A (Community Defender Organization: Grant and Conditions).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of **FIRSTBINGO.COM** (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Richard Wachter, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14th day of April, 2005.

 
/s/ Richard Wachter 
Richard Wachter 
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6398

KEVIN SMITH, a/k/a Bar-None-Royal Blackness,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LAURIE F. BESSINGER, Warden; VAUGHN JACKSON,

Captain; TERRELL CANNON, SR.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-96-2217-0-23BD)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 7, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Smith v. Bessinger, No. CA-96-2217-0-23BD (D.S.C. Mar. 4, 1998). 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
_____________ No. 95-3565WA

_____________ Otis Wayne Gunn, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western Bill Minor, Central City, * District of Arkansas. Arkansas Police Officer; * Don Bullock, Central City, * [UNPUBLISHED] Arkansas Police Officer; City * of Central City, Arkansas; City * of Lavaca, Arkansas, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: April 4, 1996 Filed: April 9, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Otis Wayne Gunn appeals the district court's adverse judgmen t following a bench trial in Gunn's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Because Gunn did not p rovide a transcript after we denied his request for one a t government expense, we cannot review the district court's factual findings . See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Schmid v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joine rs of America , 827 F.2d 384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) , cert. denied , 484 U.S . 1071 (1988). Accepting those findings as correct, we conclude no error of law appears. We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B . A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 12.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Gad Tobaly certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report of InfoVista S.A. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for theperiod ending June30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statementswere 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 inthis Report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the Company asof, and for, the periods presented in this Report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theCompany andhave: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to theCompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented inthis Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as ofthe end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reportingthat occurred during the period covered by this Report that has materially affected,or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of theCompany’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controlover financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theCompany’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have asignificant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date:October 10, 2006   /s/ Gad Tobaly Name: Gad Tobaly    *Title:  Chief Executive Officer*
Unassociated Document


     

    
      	
              CareAdvantage

            	
              485C
      Rt. 1 South

            
	 
      	
              4th
      Floor, Suite 400

            
	 
      	
              Iselin,
      NJ  08830-3037

            
	 
      	
              Tel:  866-863-6555

            
	 
      	
              732-362-5000

            
	 
      	
              Fax:  732-362-5005

            
	 
      	
              www.careadvantage.com

            


    

    


    December
30, 2009

    
      	 
      
	 
      	
              Via:
      U.S. Mail And Facsimile

            


    

     

    Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont

    445
Industrial Lane

    Montpelier,
Vermont  05602

    Attn:      Don
C. George

    President
and Chief Executive Officer

    


    Dear
Don:

     

    This will confirm our agreement whereby
CareAdvantage, from January 1, 2010 to January 31, 2010, will provide to Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont (“BCBSVT”) the services of Stephen Perkins,
M.C., in exchange for BCBSVT’s payment of $*, which amount shall be paid without
invoice no later than January 31, 2010.

     

    Assuming that this letter accurately
reflects our understanding, please countersign a copy and return it to
me.  Thank you.

     

    
      
        	
                Sincerely,

              
	 
      
	
                /s/
      Dennis J. Mouras

              
	 
      
	
                Dennis
      J. Mouras

              
	
                President
      & Chief Executive Officer

              


      

    

    


    Agreed:

     

    Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont

     

    


    
      
        	
                By:

              	
                /s/ Don C. George

              
	 
      	
                Don
      C. George

              
	 
      	
                President
      & Chief Executive Officer

              


      

    

     

    
       

      
        

      

      Portions of
this page have been omitted pursuant to Confidential Treatment Request and filed
separately with the Commission.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brian S. MOSS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30904

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 14, 2011.

Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James G. Cowles, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Douglas Lee Harville, Harville Law Firm, L.L.C., Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*382Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Brian S. Moss has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Moss has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Moss’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” *United, States v. Cantwell,*470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Moss’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
EXHIBIT 32.01

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 PDF Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2010 (the "Report"), I, John K. Kibarian, 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, that, to my knowledge:



/s/ JOHN K. KIBARIAN John K. Kibarian President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


Date:
March 16, 2010

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 24, 2022

NO. 03-20-00552-CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Samantha Leann Lamb, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, TRIANA, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on October 9, 2020. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order. The appellant shall pay 

all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
**Exhibit 32.01**

**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 on Form 10-K ofMathStar, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2007 (the “AnnualReport”), I, Douglas M. Pihl, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

1.     The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

2.      Theinformation contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
| March 13, 2007 |   |                           |
|----------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|           |   |                           |
|           | By     | /s/ Douglas M.  Pihl           |   |
|           |   | Douglas M. Pihl                |
|           |   | President and  Chief Executive |
|           |   | Officer                        |

 

----
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 48 89

_____________________________
R ICHARD D ESHAWN J ENKINS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Cou rt for Alachua County

. James M. Colaw
, Judge

. August 1, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , M AKAR , and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.33 1

.

_ ____ ________________________ Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Greg Caracci , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley M oody , Attorney General, and Benjamin L. Hoffman
, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.