alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.1
                      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, James J. Ling, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Empiric Energy, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my  knowledge,  the  consolidated  financial  statements,  and other
financial  information included in this quarterly 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  quarterly
report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) (Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions.)

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 the  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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness 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 controls; and

Date: November 14, 2003

By:  /s/  James J. Ling
   --------------------
   James J. Ling
   Chief Financial Officer
#### Jerry H. ABRAHAM and James E. House, II v. James M. ROONEY, Arshed P. Malik, Tod C. Engelhardt and Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company.

No. 2010-CC-2182.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Abraham, Jerry H. et al.; House II, James E.; —Plaintiff(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 657-588; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-C-652.

Denied.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

((((((((((((((((

No. 04-0155

((((((((((((((((

Gte Mobilnet Of South Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless,

v.

CELLULAR MAX, INCORPORATED

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

On Petition for Petition for Review

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

**ORDER**

1.The motion to continue stay proceedings, being treated as a motion to continue abatement, filed on August 27, 2004, is granted, and the **ABATEMENT**is extended until November 1, 2004 to allow the parties to proceed with settlement negotiations.

2.This case is removed from the Court's active docket until November 1, 2004, by which time the parties must file either a status report or a motion to dismiss.  The parties shall immediately notify this Court about any changes in status in the settlement proceedings.

Done at the City of Austin, this 31st day of August, 2004.

Andrew Weber, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Nancy J. Vega, Chief Deputy Clerk
#### DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE o/b/o Sharon M. SIMMONS, Appellant, v. Bryant WARDLAW, Appellee.

No. 4D09-3656.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 24, 2010.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Toni C. Bernstein, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Patricia Ireland of Phillips & Richard, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The Department of Revenue (Department), on behalf of Sharon M. Simmons, appeals a circuit court’s order vacating the Final Order of Paternity and Administrative Support issued by the Department against appellee, Bryant Wardlaw. The circuit court vacated the order upon its finding that the order was entered without proper notice and was thus void. Jurisdiction to judicially review administrative support orders rendered pursuant to section 409.2563, Florida Statutes (2009), lies with the district courts of appeal. Because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the Final Order of Paternity and Administrative Support, we reverse the circuit court’s order. *See*§ 120.68, Fla. Stat. (2009); *Dep’t of Revenue v. Manasala,*982 So.2d 1257, 1259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (holding that circuit courts do not have jurisdiction to enter an order either vacating or retroactively affecting an administrative support order); *Dep’t of Revenue v. Mohomed,*996 So.2d 900, 901 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (explaining that “jurisdiction to retroactively review a final administrative support order is vested in the district courts of appeal not in the circuit courts”).

*Reversed.*

TAYLOR, HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 7164]

# SUMMARY:

This is a notice of intent to establish The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Scientific Advisory Board, hereinafter referred to as “the Board.”

The Board serves the Global AIDS Coordinator (“the Coordinator”) in a solely advisory capacity concerning scientific, implementation, and policy issues related to the global response to HIV/AIDS. These issues will be of concern as they influence the priorities and direction of PEPFAR evaluation and research, the content of national and international strategies and implementation, and the role of PEPFAR in the international discourse regarding appropriate and resourced responses.

The Board will be composed of 25 to 30 members appointed by the Coordinator, representing U.S. Government and non-U.S. Government personnel. The membership will be representative of the HIV/AIDS community, academia, international experts, partner government representatives, multilateral and bilateral agency representatives, foundations, advocates, and non-governmental organizations. Members who are not U.S. employees will be representative members.

                        Public notice of all meetings of the Panel will be provided in the                         **Federal Register**                         in accordance with the FACA.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Paul D. Bouey, Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Washington, DC 20037,                         *BoueyPD@state.gov.*

                        This certification will be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

Dated: September 27, 2010.

Paul D. Bouey,

Deputy Coordinator, Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2010-24691 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
Order entered May 15, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00387

- CV

DESIREE DANIELS BROW N, Appellant

V.

ENCOMPASS M.P. LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 18

- 00385



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s May 13, 2019 motion to extend time to file brief

. Appellant explains the extension is necessary, in part, because s he is attempting to s ettle her
dispute with appellee

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant to file, no later than June

17, 2019, either her opening brief or a status report.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                        REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
                      REGARDING ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.:

With respect to registration statements (Nos. 333-15877, 333-51681, 333-79579,
333-102672 and 333-110110) on Form S-8 and the registration statements (No.
333-106615, 333-115459 and 333-121622) on Form S-3 of Northfield Laboratories
Inc., we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated
January 7, 2005 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(C) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered to be a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
January 10, 2005
#### John C. GRAY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D09-2060.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 20, 2010.

*342Mark L. Horwitz and Cassandra Snapp of Law Offices of Mark L. Horwitz, Orlando, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

COHEN, J.

John Charles Gray, Jr., appeals the denial of his dispositive motion to dismiss predicated on section 776.032, Florida Statutes (2007). We affirm.

Gray was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm after he allegedly pointed his handgun at the driver of another vehicle and threatened to shoot him. Asserting that he was immune from prosecution because he was acting in self defense, Gray moved to dismiss the charge pursuant to section 776.032 and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4). The trial court denied these motions and Gray filed a petition for writ of certiorari. This court denied the petition, citing to *Peterson v. State,*983 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

Subsequently, Gray moved to certify the issue as one of great public importance to the supreme court. In addressing the motion, this court recognized the conflict between *Peterson*and *Velasquez v. State,*9 So.3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). *See Gray v. State,*13 So.3d 114, 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). This court also acknowledged that Gray advocated a different procedure than either *Peterson*or *Velasquez.*Specifically, Gray asserted that the “proper approach is to have the court make the determination at a proceeding much like the one *Peterson*requires, except that the burden at such a proceeding would be on the State to establish that Defendant is not entitled to immunity.” *Id.*This court denied the motion and stated, “[W]e will take it up, if raised, on plenary appeal.” *Id.*Subsequently, Gray pled nolo contendere and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss.

Gray now appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss and renews the argument he raised in his petition for writ of certio-rari. Consistent with the opinion denying Gray’s motion for certification, we agree that *Peterson,*983 So.2d 27, sets out the proper procedure for addressing a motion to dismiss which raises section 776.032 immunity. This court is not alone in this conclusion. *See McDaniel v. State,*24 So.3d 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); *State v. Yaqubie,*— So.3d - (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). We also point out that the conflict between *Velasquez*and *Peterson*has been accepted for review in *Dennis v. State,*29 So.3d 290 (Fla.2009) (table), and is pending resolution.

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTOSECTION 906**

**OFTHESARBANES-OXLEYACT**

 

In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Highwoods Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terry L. Stevens, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ TERRYL.STEVENS                                                |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Terry L. StevensSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| March 2, 2008                                           |   |
#### Zachary ZEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D08-2615.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 27, 2010.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for first degree murder with a firearm, attempted robbery with a firearm, armed burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery, and aggravated assault with a firearm. We affirm on all issues except two concerning the defendant’s sentences.

The trial court sentenced the defendant concurrently to a term of life on the first degree murder, thirty years on the attempted armed robbery, fifteen years on the aggravated assault, and to a consecutive life term on the armed burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery. The defendant argues the trial court erred in imposing sentences in excess of the statutory maximum for the attempted robbery with a firearm and aggravated assault with a firearm charges. We agree in part.

Attempted robbery with a firearm is a second degree felony, with a maximum penalty of fifteen years. § 775.082, Fla. Stat. (2005); *Betty v. State,*7 So.3d 586, 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). However, the trial court sentenced the defendant to thir*163ty years as if the charge was a first degree felony. The State acknowledges this error. We therefore reverse this sentence and remand the case to the trial court to re-sentence the defendant on the attempted robbery with a firearm conviction.

The defendant also argues that his sentence on the aggravated assault with a firearm charge of fifteen years is illegal. Aggravated assault with a firearm is a third degree felony, carrying a maximum penalty of five years. §§ 784.021(2) and 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2005). However, because the defendant scored 15.56 years in prison on his scoresheet, the court did not err in sentencing him to fifteen years. *See*§ 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2005) (authorizing the trial court to sentence to the lowest permissible sentence); *see also Daniels v. State,*838 So.2d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Nevertheless, there is a scrivener’s error on the judgment, which lists this charge as a second degree felony.

For these reasons, we reverse the sentence on the attempted robbery with a firearm charge and remand the case for resentencing on this charge and for correction of the scrivener’s error in the judgment concerning the aggravated assault with a firearm charge.

*Reversed and Remanded.*

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

I, Michael D. Burger, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report of Merix Corporation on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 1, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such quarterly report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Merix Corporation.



|                 |  |                                                
|---------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|By:              |  | /s/ MICHAEL D. BURGER                          
|                 |  | Michael D. Burger                              
|                 |  | Director, President and Chief Executive Officer
|                 |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                  
|                
|October 11, 2007
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    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 covered by the Report.
   May 15,
2007
     Date
    
    /s/ George C. Platt

     George C. PlattChief Executive Officer
 
 1




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    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 covered by the Report.
   May 15,
2007
     Date
    
    /s/ Laurie L. Latham

     Laurie L. LathamChief Financial Officer
 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7185

ROGER DEAN RENSHAW,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JAMES FEELY, M.D.; RON ANGELONE, Director,

Department of Corrections; STERLING PROFFITT,

Superintendent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-96-615)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Dean Renshaw, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion. We affirm, in part, on the reasoning of the district court, Renshaw v. Feely, No. CA-96-615 (W.D.

Va. July 25, 1996), and because Renshaw failed to show that Appellees acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical

needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). 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
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,092,000
<SECURITIES>                                    13,494,886
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,354,463
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (354,952)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,221,725
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,663,244
<PP&E>                                          22,922,915
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,237,997)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,345,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,035,493
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,651,867
<COMMON>                                        84,229,597
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3,853,638)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   114,345,759
<SALES>                                         29,777,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,777,283
<CGS>                                           18,317,401
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,789,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 660,607
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,613,960
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,306,055
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,307,905
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,307,905
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .29


</TABLE>
#### Richard N. LINGER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 13804.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 4, 1960.

Raymond, Chirco & Fletcher, Detroit, Mich., Robert A. Bell, Columbus, Ohio, Harry M. Nayer, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Charles K. Rice, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Hugh K. Martin, Columbus, Ohio, for appellee.

Before MILLER, CECIL and WEICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of the Government and its confession of error,

It is ordered that the judgment of conviction be reversed and that this cause be remanded to the District Court for retrial.