alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   |            |   |   |   |   | RIDGEWOOD ENERGY K FUND, LLC                    |
|--------|-----------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: | August 10, 2010 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | ROBERT E. SWANSON                                    |
|   |            |   | Name:  |   |   | Robert E. Swanson                                    |
|   |            |   | Title: |   |   | Chief Executive Officer                              |
|   |            |   |   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|   |            |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |            |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
| Dated: | August 10, 2010 | By:    | /s/    |   |   | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY                                 |
|   |            |   | Name:  |   |   | Kathleen P. McSherry                                 |
|   |            |   | Title: |   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |            |   |   |   |   | (Principal Financial Officer)                        |
|   |            |   |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |            |   |   |   |   |                                                 |

----
##### 



Pharma
Services Intermediate Holding Corp. and Subsidiaries
 Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a),
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pharma Services
Intermediate Holding Corp.;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(s) 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)
    
    [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986.](c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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(s) 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 controls 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.
 August 12, 2005
 /s/ Dennis B. GillingsDennis B. Gillings, Ph.D.Executive Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Fredrick Earl SANDERS

No. COA17-1399

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 2, 2018

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Archives and Records Administration

###### Information Security Oversight Office 

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101.6, announcement is made for the following committee meeting: 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee (NISPPAC).                    

*Date of Meeting:*                         November 15, 2005.                     

*Time of Meeting:*                         10 a.m.-12 noon.                     

*Place of meeting:*                         National Archives and Records Administration, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Thomas Jefferson Room 122, Washington, DC 20408.                     

*Purpose:*                         To discuss National Industrial Security Program policy matters.                     

This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) no later than October 28, 2005. ISOO will provide additional instructions for gaining access to the location of the meeting. 

*For Further Information Contact:*                         J. William Leonard, Director Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives Building, 700 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20408, telephone number (202) 219-5250.                    

Dated: October 4, 2005. 

Mary Ann Hadyka, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05-20300 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515-01-U
John Fletcher CHURCH, Plaintiff, v. Jean Marie DECKER (formerly Church), Defendant.

Nos. COA17-1119 17-1120

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 15, 2018

DISMISSED.

AFFIRMED.
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 Annual Report of
Visual Management Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period
ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the “Report”), I, Jason Gonzalez, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)           the
Report fully complies with the requirements of §13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §78m or 78o(d), and,




(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




Date:  May
      16, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Jason GonzalezJason
      GonzalezPresident
      and Chief ExecutiveOfficer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7953

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALFONSO ORTIZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-98-AW; CA-03-1176-AW) Submitted: August 13, 2004 Decided: October 8, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfonso Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se. James Marton Trusty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Alfonso Ortiz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ortiz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
**Exhibit 21**

**EXHIBIT 21 SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT**

BEIJING HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTING COMPANY LIMITED, aChina Limited Partnership (Joint Venture 90% Ownership) 

H&S HOLDINGS LIMITED, a Thailand corporation 

H&S SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT and KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, an India corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES (CAYMAN ISLANDS), INC., a Cayman Islands corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES (INDIA)PRIVATE LIMITED, an India corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES (KOREA), INC., a Korea corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES (NZ) LIMITED, a New Zealand corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES (UK) FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, a United Kingdom company 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES AB, a Sweden corporation

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES AG, a Switzerland corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES ARGENTINA, S.A., an Argentina corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES ASIA-PACIFIC, LTD., an Illinois corporation

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES AUSTRALIA, LTD., an Illinois corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES BV, a Netherlands corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES CANADA, INC., a Canada corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES (CENTRAL EASTERN EUROPE) SRL, a Romanian corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES CONSULTORES de GESTAO Lda, a Portugal corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES DE CHILE LIMITADA, a Chilecorporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES DO BRASIL LTDA, a Brazilian corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES DUTCH PARTNERSHIP, a Netherlands partnership 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES ESPANA, INC., anIllinois corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES FAR EAST LIMITED (Hong Kong), a Hong Kong corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES HOLDINGS DO BRASIL LTDA, a Brazilian corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES HONG KONG LTD., an Illinois corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES, INC., a Delaware corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES INTERIM EXECUTIVE GmbH, a Germany Limited Liability Company 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES INTERNATIONAL SRL, an Italy corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES JAPAN, LTD., anIllinois corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES JAPAN GODO KAISHA, a Japanese limited liability company 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES LATIN AMERICA, INC., an Illinois corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES LEBANON SAL (OFF-SHORE), a Lebanese corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES (MIDDLE EAST) LLC, a Dubai corporation

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES (RUSSIA) LLC, a Russian corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES, S.A. de C.V., a Mexico corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES Sp.zo.o, a Poland corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES SINGAPORE PTE LTD., a Singapore corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES TAIWAN LIMITED, a Taiwan corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES (THAILAND) CO., LTD, a Thailand corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES UK LIMITED, a UK corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES UNTERNEHMENSBERATUNG, GmbH, an Austria corporation 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES UNTERNEHMENSBERATUNGGmbH & Co. KG, a Germany Limited Partnership 

HEIDRICK & STRUGGLES UNTERNEHMENSBERATUNG VERWALTUNG, GmbH, a Germany Limited LiabilityCompany
STATE of North Carolina v. Devon Maurice GLYNN

No. 480P06-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 6, 2018

Devon Glynn, for Glynn, Devon Maurice.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 17th of October 2018 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Wake County:

*733"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th of November 2018."
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 157

In the Interest of A.B., a child

Leslie Johnson, L.B.S.W., Cass

County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

A.B., a child, Respondent

and

J.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20230197

In the Interest of A.C., minor child

Leslie Johnson, L.B.S.W., Cass 

County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

A.C., a child; D.C., father, Respondents

and

J.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20230198

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

AUGUST 17, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
In the Interest of A.W., minor child

Tony Jablonsky, Cass County 

Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

A.W., a child; A.W., father, Respondents

and

J.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20230199

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, 

the Honorable Daniel E. Gast, Judicial Referee.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Rebecca R. Jund, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, N.D., for petitioner and 

appellee; submitted on brief.

Elizabeth J. Sundby, Fargo, N.D. for respondent and appellant; submitted on 

brief.
1

Interest of A.B., A.C. & A.W.

Nos. 20230197, 20230198 & 20230199

Per Curiam.

[¶1] J.S. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights 

to A.B., A.C., and A.W. She argues the court abused its discretion by 

terminating her parental rights.

[¶2] The juvenile court found the children have been subjected to aggravating 

circumstances as defined in N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-01(3)(h) when J.S. allowed the 

children to be present in an environment subjecting them to exposure to

controlled substances. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(b). The court also found the 

children are in need of protection, and the children have been in the care, 

custody, and control of the human service zone for at least 450 out of the 

previous 660 nights. N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(c)(2). J.S. does not challenge 

these findings. See Interest of B.R., 2023 ND 137, ¶ 2 (“Because the court may 

terminate parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-20(1)(b), we need not 

determine whether the court erred in finding the conditions and causes of the 

need for protection are likely to continue under N.D.C.C. § 27-20.3-

20(1)(c)(1).”). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by 

terminating the parental rights of J.S. We summarily affirm under

N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr
STATE of North Carolina v. Isaac Tyrone JACKSON, Jr.

No. 111P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, Attorney at Law, for Jackson, Isaac Tyrone (Jr.)

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Vernon K. Stewart, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of April 2018 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 10th of April 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
#### C. W. Young, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. Elizabeth J. Moll, Joined by Her Husband, Otto C. Moll, *Defendants in Error.*

En Banc.

Decision Filed February 13, 1928.

*Baxter, Byrd & Walton*and *Willard & Knight,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*McCune, Casey, Hiaasen <& Fleming,*for Defendants in Error.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment 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 judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the *187said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Strum, J. J., concur.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00141-CR

JASON IRA HOSEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11 F 0798 005

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
2

ORDER

Court reporter Leslie P. Bates recorded the trial court proceedings in cause number 06-

13-00141-CR, styled Jason Ira Hosey v. The State of Texas (tried in the 5th Judicial District 

Court of Bowie County under trial court cause number 11 F 0798 005). The reporter’s record 

was originally due in this case September 10, 2013, and was most recently due to be filed by 

November 12, 2013. Bates has filed two previous requests to extend the deadline for filing the 

reporter’s record. We granted the first two requests and stated in our disposition of the second 

that we would not look upon a third request with favor. Bates has now filed a third request 

seeking more time to prepare the record in this appeal.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establish that “trial and appellate courts are 

jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.” TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c). 

The Rules further instruct that an “appellate court may enter any order necessary to ensure the 

timely filing of the appellate record.” Id. In furtherance of our responsibilities established by the 

Rules, we find we must take steps to ensure the filing of the record in this case.

We overrule Bates’ third request for an extension of time and order Bates to file the 

reporter’s record in cause number 06-13-00141-CR with this Court on or before Tuesday, 

December 3, 2013.

If the record is not received by December 3, we warn Bates that we may begin contempt 

proceedings and order her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of this Court

for failing to obey its order.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: November 26, 2013
#### Atlantic Bank & Trust Company, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Florida, *Appellant,*v. Theodore Sengstak, M. E. Shumaker (also Known as Melvin E. Shumaker), and Marvie M. Shumaker, His Wife, and Edward Broad, Trustee, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed March 28, 1928.

*607*Hull, Landis & Whitehair,*for Appellant;

*F.*17. *Pope,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

The controlling1 litigated question in this ease was whether or not the mortgage held by the appellant was prior in dignity to the mortgage sought to be foreclosed by Sengstak. The determination of this question depended upon the consideration of testimony taken before a special master and reported to the court. This Court has repeatedly held that,

“While the findings and conclusions of a chancellor, where the testimony is not taken before him but before an examiner or master and the chancellor is not afforded the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are not entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury and are not so conclusive, yet even in that case they should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless they are clearly shown to be erroneous. Mock v. Thomson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 So. 673; Lucas v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419, 31 So. 231.”

See Gollnick *et ux.*v. Barker, opinion filed November 7th, 1927, reported in 114 Sou., page 527.

There were assignments of error bringing many other questions to the attention of this Court, but a careful consideration of the record discloses no reversible error.

*608The decree of the chancellor should be affirmed and it is so ordered.'

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum, Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
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 Quarterly Report of StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark Joseph Corrao, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: May 20, 2009  /s/ Mark Joseph Corrao Mark Joseph Corrao Chief Financial Officer