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



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pizza Inn,
Inc.;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.
    
    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(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 control 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: November  29, 2006
    By:
    /s/  Clinton J. ColemanPrincipal Financial Officer
| Skip to ContentRelease dates |AboutCurrent release*Other formats:* ASCII (43 KB) |PDF (165 KB) |CSV (210 KB)
On October 1, 2010, the E.15 statistical release transitioned from the Board of Governors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
The contents of each edition of the databook are as follows:
Section A:  Amount and Characteristics of Farm Loans Made by Commercial BanksSection B:  Selected Statistics from the Quarterly Reports of Condition of Commercial BanksSection C:  Reserve Bank Surveys of Farm Credit Conditions and Farm Land Values
**June 2010**Section ASection BSection C**March 2010**Section ASection BSection C
Statistical releases
Home |Economic research and dataAccessibility |Contact Us**Last update: November 18, 2010** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02457-BNB 

ASHANTI BLACK,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. JAMES THALKEN, DDS # 15173,

SHARON PHILLIP, Nurse Practitioner, and

DR. WORMER, Physician,

Defendants. 

ORDER DRAWING CASE

After review pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.2C, the Court has determined that

this case does not appear to be appropriate for summary dismissal. Therefore, this

case is being drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate judge. See D.C.COLO.LCivR

8.2D. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this case shall be drawn to a district judge and to a magistrate

judge. 

DATED April 3, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02457-PAB Document 19 Filed 04/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
|Skip to ContentRelease Date: September 16, 2004Release dates | 
Coded tables |
Historical dataCurrent release | Screen reader | PDF (450 KB)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Z.1 Release                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|Complete file      PDF (777 KB)

Summary statistics and table of contents      PDF (374 KB) | CSV (10 KB)
Debt growth, borrowing and debt outstanding tables      PDF (13 KB) | CSV (7 KB)
Flows tables      PDF (172 KB) | CSV (132 KB)
Level tables      PDF (149 KB) | CSV (115 KB)
Balance sheet tables      PDF(25 KB) | CSV (14 KB)
Supplementary tables      PDF (39 KB) | CSV (25 KB)These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web SiteRelease dates | 
Coded tables |
Historical dataCurrent release | 
 Screen reader | PDF (450 KB)

Statistical releasesHome |
Economic research and dataAccessibility | 
Contact Us
Last update: September 16, 2004
|These files are available in Acrobat (PDF 3) format only.Obtaining the free Acrobat Reader from the Adobe Web Site
SCHEDULE OF AGREEMENTS WITH EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
                 ----------------------------------------------

     The Company has entered into agreement with the following individuals. Such
agreements are  substantially  identical in all material respects to the form of
agreement set forth in Exhibit (10) (h).

                                George R. Bennyhoff
                                Steven A. Ellers
                                John R. Gailey III
                                Stephen M. Heumann
                                Lawrence P. Higgins
                                Donald E. Morel, Jr.
                                Anna Mae Papso
#### BOUGERE et ux. v. CHERAMIE et al.

No. 3066.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Dec. 23, 1948.

C. A. Blanchard, of Donaldsonville, for appellants.

St. Clair Adams & Son, of New Orleans, Aubert L. Talbot, of Napoleonville, and Wm. H. McClendon, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellees.

ELLIS, Judge.

This is a suit by a father and mother, Paul Bougere, Sr., and Mildred Bougere, in which they seek to recover damages for the death of their minor son, Paul Bougere, Jr.

An examination of the record reveals that it contains only the testimony of two witnesses, whereas • the counsel in their briefs, and the Judge in his written reasons for judgment, discuss the testimony of many other witnesses who evidently testified in this case.

It is, therefore, necessary that the missing testimony be supplied and it is ordered that this case be remanded to the Twenty-third Judicial District Court for the Parish of Assumption for the completion of the transcript.

It is further ordered that this testimony be supplied and the record completed within thirty days or the appeal shall stand dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00375-CMA-01

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. KEITH ALLISON,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO

REVIEW MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DENIAL OF BOND AND REQUEST FOR

DETENTION HEARING (#114)

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Request for District Court Judge

to Review Magistrate’s Denial of Bond and Request for Detention Hearing (Doc. # 114).

Defendant’s Request for District Court Judge to Review Magistrate Judge’s

Denial of Bond is GRANTED. The Court has conducted a de novo review, including

review of the Motion (Doc. # 114), the Superseding Indictment (Doc. # 126), the Motion

to Detain (Doc. # 15), the Pretrial Services Report, and the transcript of the October 5,

2011 Detention Hearing (Doc. # 155). The Court finds that the record demonstrates by

a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will

reasonably assure the appearance of Defendant Allison. The Court also finds that the

record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination

of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community.

Case 1:11-cr-00375-CMA Document 165 Filed 10/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Therefore, it is ORDERED that:

1) The Order of Detention (Doc. # 62) is AFFIRMED, and Defendant Allison

shall be held in this matter without bond.

2) Defendant’s Request for Bond Hearing is DENIED. The hearing

previously set for November 1, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., is VACATED.

DATED: October 31 , 2011

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00375-CMA Document 165 Filed 10/31/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamel Champion, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 696]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered November 30, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress lineup identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction arises from the shooting death of a restaurant owner. The defendant was indicted for, inter alia, murder in the second degree based upon the theory of felony murder *(see*Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). The felony murder charge was based on the underlying crime of attempted robbery in the first degree.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove that he committed attempted robbery in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt. However, viewing the evidence adduced at trial in light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of attempted robbery in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt and, consequently, of felony murder.

The defendant’s contention that he was prevented from proving that the lineup was suggestive and thereby deprived of his right to due process is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *see also People v Sutherland, 280*AD2d 622), and, in any event, is without merit.

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### Johnson, Trustee, *v.*Johnson et al.

(No. 23760

Decided May 22, 1935.)

*Mr. Daniel E. Morgan*and *Messrs. Howell, Roberts*<f *Duncan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Balter, Hostetler, Sidlo & Patterson,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said case.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Stephenson, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Weygandt, C. J., and Jones, J., not participating.
Case 1:11-cv-02223-LTB Document 13 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02223-LTB Document 13 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02223-LTB Document 13 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
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 Mobius Management Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Raymond F. Kunzmann, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.



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.



/s/ Raymond F. Kunzmann
-------------------------------
Raymond F. Kunzmann
Chief Financial Officer
November 8, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1457 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1457

   To provide for the protection of mail delivery on certain postal 
                    routes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2007

Mr. Harkin (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. 
Leahy) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for the protection of mail delivery on certain postal 
                    routes, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. MAIL DELIVERY PROTECTION.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Mail Delivery 
Protection Act of 2007''.
    (b) Mail Delivery Protection.--Section 5212 of title 39, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Postal Service may''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b)(1) Except as provided under paragraph (2), the Postal Service 
may not enter into any contract under this section with any motor 
carrier or other person for the delivery of mail on any route with 1 or 
more families per mile.
    ``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)--
            ``(A) any contract described under that paragraph in effect 
        on the date of enactment of the Mail Delivery Protection Act of 
        2007--
                    ``(i) shall remain in effect until terminated under 
                the terms of such contract or as otherwise provided by 
                law; and
                    ``(ii) may be renewed 1 or more times; and
            ``(B) service on a rural route may be converted to contract 
        delivery service when such route no longer serves a minimum of 
        1 family per mile.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01983-WJM-KLM

JAMES ROE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARGARET HEIL, in her personal capacity and in her official capacity as Chief of

Behavioral Health for the Colorado Department of Corrections,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Uncontested Motion to Vacate

November 29, 2011 Scheduling/Planning Conference [Docket No. 18; Filed October 20,

2011] (the “Motion”).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. The Scheduling

Conference set for November 29, 2011, is VACATED. The Court will reset the Scheduling

Conference after the District Judge rules on the pending objection [Docket No. 10; Filed

September 21, 2011] to the Order regarding Plaintiff’s identity issued September 7, 2011

[Docket No. 9].

Dated: October 24, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-01983-WJM -KLM Document 20 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**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 ofPhotonic Products Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),I, Daniel Lehrfeld, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidatedfinancial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidatedresults of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

 
| Dated: April 7, 2005 |
|----------------------|
|                 |
|                 | /s/ Daniel  Lehrfeld |   |
|                 | Daniel  Lehrfeld |
|                 | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

This certification has been furnished solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Sections [302] [906] has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.

 

----
Case 1:11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 8
Case 1:11-cv-02528-PAB-MEH Document 1 Filed 09/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 8
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael James, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered February 5, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By decision and order dated January 17, 1989, this court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to hear and report on the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial *(see,*CPL 30.20, 30.30), and the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim *(see, People v James,*146 AD2d 647). The Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), has conducted a hearing and submitted its report to this court.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, after the hearing, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds pursuant to CPL 30.20, and 30.30. With respect to the 200-day period from the filing of the felony complaint on April 12, 1984 until October 29, 1984, when his motions to dismiss were filed, the People had to account for 17 days of delay in order to comply with the six-month (183-day) time period pursuant to CPL 30.30 *(see, People v Anderson,*66 NY2d 529). However, the 34-day period from June 5, 1984, when the People first announced their readiness for trial to July 9, 1984, was clearly chargeable to the defendant who requested the adjournment *(see,*CPL 30.30 *922[4] [b]; *People v Kopciowski,*68 NY2d 615). Therefore, even if all of the other time is charged to the People, they were ready within 166 days, thereby complying with the statutory speedy trial requirement set forth in CPL 30.30. Further, as noted by the Supreme Court, given the serious nature of the offense and the lack of prejudice, dismissal was not required on constitutional speedy trial grounds pursuant to CPL 30.20 *(see, People v Taranovich,*37 NY2d 442).

The defendant’s other contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Hooper and Eiber, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00365-WYD 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

1. GUSTAVO BARELA-HOTOF, a/k/a Gustavo Roblero, a/k/a Lopez Gustavo Roblero, 

a/k/a Alberto Gutierrez, a/k/a Alberto Zamora, a/k/a Juan Carlos Penagos, a/k/a Zacarias 

Robledo, a/k/a Gustavo Cifuentes, a/k/a Edgar Salazar, 

Defendant. 

MINUTE ORDER 

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL 

 

Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Defendant’s Request for Variance in Guideline 

Sentence (Doc. 24), [ECF No. 29], filed March 8, 2012, is GRANTED. Accordingly, 

Defendant’s motion entitled Further Grounds for Request For Variance In Guideline 

Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) [ECF No. 24], filed February 14, 2012 is 

WITHDRAWN.

Dated: March 9, 2012. 

Case 1:11-cr-00365-WYD Document 31 Filed 03/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1