alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 of Bluegate 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(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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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 registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: July 17, 2009                                     |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                    |   |
|                                                    |   |
| /s/ Charles E. Leibold                                  |   |
| Charles E. Leibold                                      |   |
| Chief Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>    5 
<CIK>        0000769346 
<NAME>       KARA INTERNATIONAL, INC. 
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS                
        
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                             573
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   573
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     573
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1406
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2049
<OTHER-SE>                                       (2882)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       573
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1342
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1342)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1342)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1320
VICTOR L. TAYLOR, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JAGRTI COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-1985-BLA) Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: November 1, 1996 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor L. Taylor, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Gary K. Stearman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Konstantine Keian Weld, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the Benefits Review Board's final decision and order denying his claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1996). We have reviewed the record and the Benefits Review Board's order affirming the decision of the administrative law judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Benefits Re view Board. Taylor v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs , No. 95-1985-BLA (B.R.B. Jan. 18, 1996). 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
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

QUINTON LEE KNIGHT, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3240

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 6, 2019

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Christopher Sabella, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimming, II, Public Defender,

and Deanna K. Marshall, Special Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegal, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
CONSENT OF EXPERT


Reference is made to the feasibility study entitled “Feasibility Study and Technical Report Update on the Brucejack Project, Stewart, BC” with an effective date of June 19, 2014 (the “Report”).
  I, David Ireland, on behalf of Tetra Tech (the “Company”), consent to the use of the Company’s name and references to the Report, and to the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from the Report, in(i) Pretium Resources Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 and (ii) Pretium Resources Inc.’s registration statements on Form F-10 (File No. 333-179726 and 333-197304) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Very truly yours,
#### Thelma RHODES, Appellant, v. J. M. TINDALL, Individually and dba J. M. Tindall Gin, Appellee.

No. 8261.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.

Nov. 13, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1972.

Ochsner & Baughman, Harold W. Ochs-ner, Amarillo, for appellant.

Smith, Teed, Wade & Waters, David E. Holt, Pampa, for appellee.

JOY, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court setting aside a default judgment previously granted plaintiff Rhodes against defendant Tindall. Reversed and rendered.

Suit was filed on January 22, 1971 by Thelma Rhodes for the wrongful death of her husband, an employee of defendant J. M. Tindall, d/b/a J. M. Tindall Gin, at the time of his death on January 27, 1969. Service was -had upon Tindall on February 5, 1971 with no answer being filed by June 3, 1971 when the plaintiff presented evidence to the court in support of a default judgment. The default judgment was signed and entered on June 21, 1971. Defendant filed his motion to set aside the default judgment on July 13, 1971 alleging the meritorious defense of the two year statute of limitation, that plaintiff was not the wife of the deceased, and therefore, was not entitled to bring the action. Further Tindall pleaded that the deceased was intoxicated at the time of the accident and therefore was contributorily negligent. Either on August 24 or August 26, an amended motion was filed by defendant according to the recitation in the court’s judgment entered subsequent to a hearing on August 26, 1971. This judgment was signed and entered on October 20, 1971, setting aside the default judgment and granting a new trial.

Appellant contends that the motion was overruled by operation of law on August 27, 1971 and makes no reference in her brief to the amended motion of either August 24 or August 26. At any rate, the order entered on October 20, 1971, setting aside the default judgment, was in excess of 45 days from both the original motion and amended motion. All parties and the *159court apparently treated the motion filed on July 13, 1971, some 22 days after entry of judgment of default, as a motion for new trial. Where, as here, the motion for new trial is filed more than 10 days from entry of judgment and the court failed to act within 30 days from the judgment, the judgment becomes final and the court loses jurisdiction. Any action taken thereafter is a nullity. Rule 329b, § 5, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellee does not contend that the motion is a bill of review and, at any rate, a bill of review is an equitable remedy and cannot be substituted for a motion for new trial, appeal or writ of error. Smith v. Smith, 468 S.W.2d 139 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1971, n.w.h.). Therefore the motion being in effect a motion for new trial and the court having failed to act within the 30 day period following the entry of the judgment of June 21, 1971, jurisdiction of the cause was lost. The judgment ordering a new trial entered on October 20, 1971 is therefore set aside and the default judgment of June 21, 1971 is declared to be a final judgment.

Reversed and rendered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000769592
<NAME>                        Tecon, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,807
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,200
<OTHER-SE>                                    (6,007)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               493
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   149
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (642)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.00)
        



</TABLE>
Affirmed as Modified and Memorandum Opinion on Remand filed May 29 ,

2014
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00628

- CR

JASMINE MONIQUE STEL LY , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1312109

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND
Appellant Jasmine Monique Stelly appeals h er conviction for assault of a public servant . On original submission, appellant argued that there wa s insufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s costs of $ 249 reflected in the judgment . We agreed and modified the trial court’s judgment to delete the specific amount of costs assessed

. Stelly v. State , No. 14

- 1 2

- 00 628

- CR; 2013 WL 645196 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 21 , 2013) vacated and remanded , No. PD

-2

385

- 13 ; 2014 WL 1512924 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2014). The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded in light of its opinion in Johns on v. State , 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The judgment includes an assessment of $ 249 in court costs. The record contains a certified, signed bill of costs listing $ 249 in court costs. We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a basis for the costs, not to determine whether there was sufficient evidence offered at tria l to prove each
cost

. Johnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d at 390 . Traditional sufficiency

- of

- th e

- evidence standards of review do not apply. Id

. Generally, a bill of costs must (1) contain the items of cost, (2) be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost, and (3) be certified. Id . at 3 92

– 93 ; see Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. arts. 103.001, 103.006 . T he record supports the assessment of costs in this case because the record contains a bill of costs that contains each item of cost, is signed by a representative of the district clerk’s office who is entitled to receive payment of the costs, and is certified

. See Johnson , 423 S.W.3d at 393

. The trial court assessed $ 249 in costs against appellant. The sum of the itemized costs in the cost bill is $ 249

. There being no challenge to any specific cost or the basis for the assessment of such cost, the bill of costs supports the costs assessed in the judgment. Id . at 396

. The fact that the bill of costs was not prepared until after the court signed the judgment does not defeat the lawfulness of the b ill of costs. Id. at 394. (“[M]atters pertaining to the imposition of court costs need not be brought to the attention of the trial court, including a bill of costs prepared after a criminal trial.”). Pursuant to the disposition on original submission, we modify the trial court’s judgment to strike the language reciting “APPEAL WAIVED. NO3

PERMISSION TO APPEAL GRANTED.” On remand, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and McCally. Do Not Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 Nayna  Networks,  Inc.  (formerly
ResCon  Technology  Corp.),  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September  30,
2005, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  the undersigned,  Michael Meyer, Principal Financial Officer of
the Company,  herby  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, as amended; and

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

Date: November 21, 2005                  By: /S/ Michael Meyer
                                           -------------------------------------
                                              Michael Meyer,
                                              Principal Financial Officer
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

**FORM 10-Q**

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-14187

 

CONSOLIDATED CAPITALINSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES/3, LP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days.

[X]Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 quarterly report of Cole National Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended August 3, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
such officer's knowledge:

         (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 as of the dates and for the periods
                  expressed in the Report.


Date: May 16, 2003
                                          /s/ Jeffrey A. Cole
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Jeffrey A. Cole
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer


                                          /s/ Lawrence E. Hyatt
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Lawrence E. Hyatt
                                          Title: Chief Financial Officer



         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          23,331
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                       536
<INVENTORY>                                     34,569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,684
<PP&E>                                          12,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 112,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,191
<BONDS>                                         17,258
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,702
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   112,596
<SALES>                                         49,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,144
<CGS>                                           32,750
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,816
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,946
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,774
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,052
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,052
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       30
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. G.B.

March 27, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.