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



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Standard Management Corporation;
 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 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; andc)
    
    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 (the registrant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 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 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 controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; andb)
    
    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:
    
    May 15, 2006/s/ Michael B. Edwards

Michael B. EdwardsChief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

** Lee does not challenge the grant of summary judgment on the substantive merits of the summary-judgment evidence to his civil rights claim. This issue is deemed abandoned on appeal. See Eason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 9 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994).

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-11016 Conference Calendar

__________________ BOBBY JOE LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:93-CV-2465-D - - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Bobby Joe Lee, Texas inmate #620339, challenges the district court's grant of summary judgement for the defendants by arguing that he was entitled to more notice of the need for a response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. ** We have carefullyNo. 95-11016 -2- reviewed the record and the arguments. We detect no procedural
error. See Martin v. Harrison County Jail , 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992). AFFIRMED.
#### Lilla Crum, *Appellant,*v. W. D. Hutchins, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision filed February 19, 1929.

Petition for rehearing denied April 20, 1929.

*228
      *Johnson, Bosarge & Allen,*for Appellant;

*Ira C. Hopper,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., Buford, J., and Giblin, Circuit Judge, concur.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer, 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 on Form 10-Q of Borland Software Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Tod Nielsen, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and results
of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ TOD NIELSEN        
|Tod Nielsen            
|                       
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|May 15, 2006           

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification is not to be incorporated by reference
into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.
Dennis D. LINEHAN, petitioner, v. Emily Johnson PIPER.

No. 17-8575.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Antonio Paulito PLAKETTA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9039.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002* In connection with the Quarterly Report of IEA Income Fund X, L.P. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the
undersigned, Dennis J. Tietz, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Cronos Capital Corp., the General Partner of the Registrant, and John Kallas,
the Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., certify, based on their
knowledge, that:  (i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of the Registrant. November 12, 2004 By
    /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. Tietz, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Cronos Capital Corp.,
General Partner of the Registrant /s/ John KallasJohn Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of CronosCapital Corp., General Partner of the Registrant A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.   *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, other than as required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be
filed with the Commission or subject to the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
Shreyans DESAI, petitioner, v. SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION.

No. 16-8985.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 7, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Keith LaMAR, petitioner, v. OHIO.

No. 17-5626.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DIEGO ESTRADA

, Appellant,

v.

SILVIA MIMS

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 2383

[ February 7, 2024 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County; Hon. John C. Lenderman, Senior Circuit Judge ; L.T. Case

No. 502015DR009097XXXMB.

Diego Estrada, Lake Worth, pro se.

No appearance filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

. Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a).

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., D AMOORGIAN and G ERBER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# L_2013195EN.01000101.xml

| 18.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 195/1 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
According to Article 4 of the Agreement of 19 October 2005 between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ( 1 ) (hereinafter ‘the Agreement’), concluded by Council Decision 2006/325/EC ( 2 ), whenever implementing measures are adopted pursuant to Article 74(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ( 3 ), Denmark’s decision on whether or not to implement the content of such measures shall be notified to the Commission. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1142/2011 establishing Annexes X and XI to Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations ( 4 ) was adopted on 10 November 2011. In accordance with Article 3(2) of the Agreement, Denmark has already, by letter of 14 January 2009, notified the Commission of its decision to implement the content of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 ( 5 ) to the extent that it amends Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 ( 6 ). In accordance with Article 4 of the Agreement, Denmark has, by letter of 11 January 2012, notified the Commission of its decision to implement the content of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1142/2011. This means that the provisions of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1142/2011 will be applied to relations between the European Union and Denmark. In accordance with Article 4(4) of the Agreement, the Danish notification creates mutual obligations between Denmark and the European Union. Thus, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1142/2011 constitutes an amendment to the Agreement to the extent that it amends Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, and is considered annexed thereto. With reference to Article 4(3) of the Agreement, implementation of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1142/2011 in Denmark can take place administratively under Section 9 of the Danish Law No 1563 of 20 December 2006 on the Brussels I Regulation. The necessary administrative measures entered into force on 11 January 2012. ( 1 )  
OJ L 299, 16.11.2005, p. 62. ( 2 )  
OJ L 120, 5.5.2006, p. 22. ( 3 )  
OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1. ( 4 )  
OJ L 293, 11.11.2011, p. 24. ( 5 )  
OJ L 7, 10.1.2009, p. 1. ( 6 )  
OJ L 149, 12.6.2009, p. 80.

---
James M. DUNLAP, petitioner, v. COTTMAN TRANSMISSIONS SYSTEMS, LLC, et al.

No. 17-237.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF INPRISE CORPORATION
FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RESTATED TO INCLUDE THE
OPERATIONS OF VISIGENIC SOFTWARE, INC. FOR THE PERIOD THEN ENDED.  THE AMOUNTS
SHOWN ARE IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT EARNINGS PER SHARE AMOUNTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
        
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996 
<CASH>                                          84,127
<SECURITIES>                                    26,142
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,790
<INVENTORY>                                      1,599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               167,563
<PP&E>                                         214,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                  95,667
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 297,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,223
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           420
<OTHER-SE>                                     202,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   297,343
<SALES>                                        233,939
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               251,821
<CGS>                                           32,914
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,394
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               198,106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   533
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 279
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,627
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,316
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,311
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,311
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
         

</TABLE>
VISTA-GRAPHICS, INC., et al., petitioners, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, et al.

No. 17-124.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7866
MALCOLM OMAWALE ABDULLAH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director; RALPH S. BEARDSLEY, Warden; OFFICER BREVARD, officially and individually, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-3350-0-21BD) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 15, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Malcolm Omawale Abdullah, 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. § 1983 (1994) 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. Abdullah v. Moore , No. CA96-3350-0-21BD (D.S.C. Nov. 25, 1997). 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2401
YORK PARK APARTMENTS, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLORIA HILL, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 96-2410
YORK PARK APARTMENTS, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLORIA HILL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Catherine C. Blake, District Judges. (CA-96-2202-WMN, CA-96-2755-WMN) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: December 27, 1996 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.2 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gloria Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Minda Frahm Goldberg, WARTZMAN, OMANSKY, BILBAUM, SIMONS, STEINBERG, SACHS & SAGAL, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Gloria Hill seeks to appeal the district court's orders remanding these actions for back rent and breach of lease to the state court from which they were removed. Because the remands are not appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447(d) (West 1996), we grant Appellee's motion to dismiss case No. 96-2401 and dismiss case No. 96-2410 for lack of jurisdiction. 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
Release:#4019-97

For Release:May 8, 1997

**CFTC FILES ANTI-FRAUD ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST**

**ROBERT H. RUTMAN OF AMBLER, PENNSYLVANIA,**

**SEEKING PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS**

**CFTC Civil Action Charges Rutman with Committing Fraud and Acting as    an Unregistered Futures Broker, Among Other Violations of Federal Commodity    Law**

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced    today the filing of a four-count anti-fraud civil injunctive complaint in    the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against    **Robert H. Rutman** of Ambler, Pennsylvania. Rutman has never been    registered with the CFTC in any capacity.

The complaint, filed on May 1, 1997, alleges that from at least February    1995 to March 1997, Rutman engaged in fraudulent conduct and other    activities involving commodity futures trading, all in violation of the *Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)* and CFTC regulations.

Specifically, the complaint charges that Rutman, among other things,    fraudulently solicited at least one customer by misrepresenting his track    record as a futures trader and the potential risks of trading commodity    futures. The complaint further alleges that Rutman continuously    misrepresented to at least one customer that the futures trading on the    customer's behalf was profitable when, in fact, the trading was at all    times unprofitable and the customer's money was lost in futures    trading.

**Registration and Other Violations Also Alleged**

The complaint also alleges that Rutman failed to register with the CFTC    as a futures commission merchant, commingled customer funds with his own,    guaranteed at least one customer that he would not lose his principal, and    failed to provide at least one customer the required risk disclosure    statements, transaction confirmations, and account statements.

In its litigation against the defendant, the CFTC is seeking preliminary    and permanent injunctions prohibiting Rutman from violating Federal    commodity law in addition to other remedial relief, including an    accounting, disgorgement of profits, restitution to customers, and a civil    monetary penalty of up to $110,000 or triple the monetary gain to the    defendant for each violation of the CEA or CFTC regulations.
Myron HUBBARD, petitioner, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, et al.

No. 16-1226.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 17, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Robert C. DENHAM, Jr., petitioner, v. Richard L. CEASE, et al.

No. 17M45.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.