alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Thomas P. Maun,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Micro Component Technology, Inc.:

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15) for the registrant and wehave:

 

a) designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation.

 

c) disclosed in this report any changes in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a) all significant deficiencies and materialweakness in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

 

 
| Dated: | November 4,  2005    | By: | /s/ Thomas P.  Maun |   |
|--------|---------------------------|-----|---------------------|--------|
|   | Thomas P. Maun            |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer  |
|   | Chief Accounting  Officer |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

RAVENWHITE LICENSING LLC,

 Plaintiff,

v.

THE HOME DEPOT, INC. et al,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00423-JRG-RSP

ORDER

Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Submit the Parties’ Proposed 

Protective Order filed by Plaintiff RavenWhite Licensing LLC and Defendants Home Depot 

U.S.A., Inc., The Home Depot, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, and Walmart Inc. Dkt. No. 41. 

After consideration, and noting its joint nature, the Motion is GRANTED. It is

ORDERED that the parties’ deadline to file a proposed protective order is extended to 

January 16, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00423-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 01/15/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 414
Jason C. UNDERWOOD, Petitioner, v. Shawn PHILLIPS, Warden.

No. 19-770

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
J'Veil OUTING, Petitioner v. Miguel A. CARDONA, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Correction

No. 19-7109

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Connecticut denied.
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/01/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       26,184
COMMITMENTS
   3,841    3,022    2,201   19,986   20,505   26,028   25,728      156      456

CHANGES FROM 09/24/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -8,753)
   1,242   -1,124     -669   -9,420   -7,342   -8,847   -9,135       94      382

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    14.7     11.5      8.4     76.3     78.3     99.4     98.3      0.6      1.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       35)
       9        6        4       15       17       24       27`

---

Updated October 25, 2013
GLASSWALL SOLUTIONS LIMITED, et al., Petitioners, v. CLEARSWIFT LTD.

No. 18-1448

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Alan OVERTON, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES.

No. 18-745.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Division denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of CIBER, Inc. and related Prospectuses:

 
| (1) Form S-8   No. 33-81320   |   | (7) Form S-8   No. 33-88046    |   | (12)   Form S-8 No. 33-88048   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
| (2) Form S-8   No. 33-88050   |   | (8) Form S-8   No. 333-15091   |   | (13)   Form S-8 No. 333-25545  |
| (3) Form S-8   No. 333-59015  |   | (9) Form S-8   No. 333-61287   |   | (14)   Form S-8 No. 333-91969  |
| (4) Form S-4   No. 333-102780 |   | (10) Form S-8   No. 333-113259 |   | (15)   Form S-8 No. 333-115951 |
| (5) Form S-8   No. 333-151923 |   | (11)   Form S-3 No. 333-155663      |   | (16)   Form S-4 No. 333-155906 |
| (6) Form S-8   No. 333-159635 |   |                                          |   |                                     |

 

of our reports dated February 25, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of CIBER, Inc. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of CIBER, Inc. and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of CIBER, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 
|                     |   | /s/   Ernst & Young LLP |
|--------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                     |   |                             |
|                     |   |                             |
| Denver,   Colorado       |   |                             |
| February 25,   2011 |   |                             |

 

----
Rose Mary KNICK, petitioner, v. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA, et al.

No. 17-647.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 2, 2018.

This case is restored to the calendar for reargument. The parties and the Solicitor General are directed to file letter briefs, not to exceed 10 pages, addressing petitioner's alternative argument for vacatur, discussed at pages 12-15 and 40-42 of the transcript of oral argument and in footnote 14 of petitioner's brief on the merits. The briefs are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, November 30, 2018. Reply briefs, not to exceed 4 pages, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, December 21, 2018.
AO 399 (01/09) Waiver of the Service of Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To:

(Name of the plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint,

two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within

60 days from , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the

United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date:

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Printed name of party waiving service of summons Printed name

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons

and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in

the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure.

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the plaintiff

and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been served.

Eastern District of Texas Barco, Inc. and Barco NV Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd., et al. 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Melissa R. Smith 11/29/2023 11/30/2023 Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. /s/ Elizabeth M. Chiaviello Elizabeth M. Chiaviello

Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP

1717 Main Street, Suite 3200

Dalas, TX 75201-7347 elizabeth.chiaviallo@morganlewis.com (214) 466-4000 Print Save As... Reset

Case 2:23-cv-00521-JRG-RSP Document 7 Filed 11/30/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 199
Marcus NOEL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-7485

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMOS I A CIVIL ACTIO

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Eastern District of Texas

TOUGH BAGS, LLC

4:23-cv-01023

SURPLUS LINK 1, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability 

Company d/b/a RAM INSULATION, INC., d/b/a RAM 

INSULATION VACUUM BAGS, d/b/a RHINO 

INSULATION VACUUM BAGS and BARRY DUFAULT 

Barry Dufault a/k/a Chris Dufault

835 Malvern Hill

Johns Creek, GA 30022

Wendy B. Mills

WB Mills, PLLC

2626 Cole Ave., Suite 300

Dallas, Texas 75204

11/17/2023

Case 4:23-cv-01023-ALM Document 4 Filed 11/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 22
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

 I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

 I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

 I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

 I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

 Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

4:23-cv-01023

0

Case 4:23-cv-01023-ALM Document 4 Filed 11/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 23
Cody SAKOMAN, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-6683.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District denied.
Lakshmi ARUNACHALAM, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 18-9386

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1997 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           8,723
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                       569
<INVENTORY>                                      6,386
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,418
<PP&E>                                           3,382
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,823
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,142
<SALES>                                         21,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,650
<CGS>                                           15,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,049
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    14
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,857
<INCOME-TAX>                                       715
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,142
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19<F1>
<FN>
<F1>The Company presents primary earnings per share (EPS) on the face of its income
statement. Fully diluted EPS is within 97% of primary EPS. The figures
presented above are primary EPS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Brandon BIVINS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6969.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         7,787,000
<SECURITIES>                                   34,207,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                  16,091,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,050,000
<INVENTORY>                                    20,143,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               79,264,100
<PP&E>                                         14,078,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 93,428,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          30,340,100
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       14,700
<OTHER-SE>                                     63,073,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   93,428,300
<SALES>                                        63,220,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               63,911,700
<CGS>                                          54,237,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,719,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             341,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,663,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,663,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,663,600)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2314 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2314

   To amend the Clean Air Act to exclude beverage alcohol compounds 
 emitted from aging warehouses from the definition of volatile organic 
                               compounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 1999

 Mr. Whitfield (for himself, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mrs. Northup, Mr. 
Lucas of Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Ney, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. 
  Hilleary, and Mr. Bryant) introduced the following bill; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Clean Air Act to exclude beverage alcohol compounds 
 emitted from aging warehouses from the definition of volatile organic 
                               compounds.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.

    Section 302(s) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7602(s)) is amended 
by adding the following at the end thereof: ``Such term shall not 
include beverage alcohol compounds (ethanol) emitted from aging 
warehouses.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

AUTOSCRIBE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v. 

REPAY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, 

REPAY HOLDINGS, LLC, M&A 

VENTURES, LLC,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00349-JRG

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Autoscribe Corporation’s (“Plaintiff”) Unopposed Motion for 

Leave to File Under Seal (the “Motion to Seal”). (Dkt. No. 71). In the Motion to Seal, Plaintiff

requests to file its Response in Opposition to M&A Ventures, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for 

Improper Venue or, In the Alternative, to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 72) and the accompanying 

exhibits (the “Response and Exhibits”) under seal because they “include[] Defendants Repay 

Holdings Corporation and Repay Holdings, LLC’s documents that are marked as 

‘CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY’ and the deposition transcript, both 

of which discuss Defendants Repay Holdings Corporation and Repay Holdings, LLC’s proprietary 

records.” (Dkt. No. 71 at 2). The Motion to Seal is unopposed. (Id. at 1, 4).

Having considered the Motion to Seal, and noting its unopposed nature, the Court is of the 

opinion that the Motion to Seal should be and hereby is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff

may file the Response and Exhibits under seal.

Case 2:23-cv-00349-JRG Document 73 Filed 02/27/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 2418
2

So Ordered this

Feb 27, 2024

Case 2:23-cv-00349-JRG Document 73 Filed 02/27/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2419