alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,134,221
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               47,923,065
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,801,375)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,137,393
<PP&E>                                       3,398,325
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,159,198)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,632,431
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       32,642,685
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,472
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,954,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,632,431
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,647,997
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,982,482
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (200,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             609,668
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                855,847
<INCOME-TAX>                                   354,127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   501,720
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF A PPEALS SEC OND DI STR I CTOFTE XAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 09 - 31 3- CV I N THE M ATTER OF M . C. S. , J R.

----- -----

FR O M THE 3 23RD DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1 

### AND J UDGME NT

----- ----- W e h aveco ns i dered app el l ant ’ s “M ot i on To D i sm i ssA ppe al . ” I ti s t he cou rt ’ s opi ni on t hatt he m ot i on s houl d be granted; t h e refore, w e d i sm i sst he a p p e a l . S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 2 .1 (a )(1 ), 4 3 .2 (f). P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: W A LKER, M C C O Y, an d M EI ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: Octob e r 1, 2009
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANTTO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.

 

CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

ELITESOFT GLOBAL, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of AmericaTowne,Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Eugene Wong, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)     	The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

(3)	     A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Secretary for EliteSoft Global, Inc., and will be retained by the company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Dated: April 12, 2016

 

By: /s/ Eugene Wong

Eugene Wong

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 31.4

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

of Periodic Report Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a)

I, Joyce LaViscount, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this amendment to annual report on Form 10-K of Helius Medical Technologies, Inc.; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                                                                                         |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: April 30, 2018                                                                    |
|                                                                                    |
| /s/ Joyce LaViscount                                                                    |
| Joyce LaViscount                                                                        |
| Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
#### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. Wes DAVENPORT, Appellant.

No. 00-2719.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 9, 2001.

Decided Jan. 19, 2001.

*609Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Wes Davenport was a confidential informant who occasionally purchased illegal drugs from dealers for the North Little Rock police. On October 31, 1998, he was stopped for speeding and, during a pat-down search, officers found a handgun and crack cocaine. Davenport was arrested and charged with drug and weapons offenses. Davenport was convicted on both counts and sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Davenport asserts the district court committed error in refusing to give a jury instruction on his public authority defense. We disagree. The evidence showed Davenport was acting on his own when he sold crack cocaine to an informant and undercover officer on October 27, 1998, and Davenport was not under the supervision or control of the investigators when he was found in possession of crack cocaine and a firearm on October 31, 1998. Because Davenport failed to prove he reasonably relied on the representation of a government official in possessing the gun and drugs, the district court properly refused to give the instruction. *See United States v. Achter,*52 F.3d 753, 755 (8th Cir.1995). Davenport also contends the district court committed error in refusing to allow him to ask a police witness a hypothetical question about whether it would be reasonable for a confidential informant to disarm someone during a drug deal. Because Davenport was not acting in a controlled buy situation during the events alleged in the indictment, the hypothetical question assumed *610facts different from those presented and would have confused and misled the jury. *See Iconco v. Jensen Construction Co.,*622 F.2d 1291, 1301 (8th Cir.1980). The district court thus properly refused the proposed hypothetical. Accordingly, we affirm Davenport’s conviction.

A true copy.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6016

JAMES GREGORY ARMISTEAD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. MR. HERRING, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:20

- hc

- 02145

- D )

Submitted : April 14, 2021 Decided: April 28, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James G. Armistead, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Gregory Armistead seeks to appe al the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both
that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independent ly reviewed the record and conclude that Armistead 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 prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          59,236
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  549,272
<ALLOWANCES>                                    86,542
<INVENTORY>                                  1,162,649
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,070,137
<PP&E>                                       2,874,095
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,376,890
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,132,040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,613,517
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,871,808
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,132,040
<SALES>                                        785,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               786,496
<CGS>                                          171,362
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  636,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                68,246
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (89,634)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (89,634)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (89,634)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
Order filed January 3 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00882

- CV

____________ MIGUEL A. ROMERO, OL GA L. MARTINEZ AND A LL OCCUPANTS , Appellant s
V.

MARIA H. MARTINEZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No . 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1083172



### ORDER
Appellee’s spouse, Angel Martinez, petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, under cause
number 17

- 36735

- H4. Because a stay i s automatically effected by Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, when this court received notice of appellant ’ s bankruptcy filing, on January 8 , 2018, we stayed all proceedings in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2.On November 13 , 201 8 , appellant s fil ed a notice of termination of

bankruptcy stay with respect to the real property that is the subject of this appeal.
Attached to the notice is a true copy of the bankruptcy court ’ s order confirming the Chapter 13 plan lifting the stay for purposes of this a ppeal

. Accordingly, the case is ordered REINSTATED and placed on the court ’ s active docket.

PER CURIAM
585 A.2d 404

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PERCY PATRICK.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1984

_____________________________ C HARLES P EARCE ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Amended Petition Alleging Ineffecti ve Assistance of Appellate Counsel

— Original Jurisdiction

.

October 16, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
The amended petition alleging in e ffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

R OWE , O STERHAUS , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

______________________ _______ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Charles Pearce, pro se
, Petitioner

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
#### TOTAL SIGNS & LIGHTING, INC., Appellant, v. Gary BARRIOS, Appellee.

No. 3D10-772.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 9, 2011.

Rehearing Denied April 7, 2011.

*1171Vernis & Bowling and David.W. Gross-man, Miami; Hicks, Porter Ebenfeld & Stein, Mark Hicks, Miami, and Erik P. Bartenhagen,- for appellant.

Lawrence J. McGuinness; Roberto Vil-lasante, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before, SHEPHERD and LAGOA, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Because the appellant-defendant-employer was entitled to workers’ compensation immunity from common law liability to the appellee-employee for injuries in a construction accident as a matter of law, see sections 440.02(15)(c)(3); 440.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2006), the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion for directed verdict below. The judgment under review in appellee’s favor is therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter one for the appellant.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 99.2





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 Merix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 24, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Janie S. Brown, 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




|(2) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Dated: October 7, 2002





/s/    JANIE S. BROWNJanie S. Brown Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANDREW J. KEARNEY.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

                              
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         23,823,598
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   9,758,449
<ALLOWANCES>                                      172,295
<INVENTORY>                                     1,086,300
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               56,493,355
<PP&E>                                          9,870,293     
<DEPRECIATION>                                  3,714,135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 75,985,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          49,689,628
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           14,280
<OTHER-SE>                                     19,632,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   75,985,416
<SALES>                                        99,034,707
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               99,740,466
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  89,537,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (558,843)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                458,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                10,303,267
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            10,303,267
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   10,303,267
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .78 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .71 
        


</TABLE>
#### CITY OF SULPHUR v. Barry L. DRONET. Cara A. Blanchette.

No. 2011-KK-2044.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re City of Sulphur; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Calcasieu, Sulphur City Court, Nos. MN7951398, MN7951397; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 11-00755.

Denied.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of Blyth, Inc., certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofBlyth, Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

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

 

(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

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

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: April 14, 2005

 

 
| /s/ Robert H. Barghaus                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert H. Barghaus                         |   |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending October 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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 result of operations of the Company. |

 
|   | /s/ Robert H.  Barghaus             |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert H. Barghaus                  |
|   | Vice President and  Chief Financial |
|   | Officer                             |
|   | December 12,  2005             |

 

 

This certification ismade solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledgestandard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----