alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31****RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**I, Henry R. Mandell certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Spatializer Audio Laboratories, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 10, 2007   /s/ Henry R. Mandell   Henry R. Mandell  Chairman of the Board  (performing the functions of principal executive officer and principal financial officer)
# SLS with the Moon in Sight

The Block 1 cargo configuration gives NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) the unique capability sending more than 26 metric tons (57,000 pounds) to the Moon.

Read More

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/sls-with-moon-sight-2/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareImage CreditNASASize1041x1041pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Dec 08, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
NO. 01-15-00397-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIRST SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

-----------------------------------------------------------------

NO. 1434115
IN THE 179TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

----------------------------------------------------------------- AUGUSTUS MITCHELL, Appellant

VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

-----------------------------------------------------------------

APPELLANT'S MOTION TO ABATE PURSUANT TO TEX.R.APP.PRO. 2
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS: AUGUSTUS MITCHELL, Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, files his Motion to Abate pursuant to Tex.R.App.Pro. 2, and in support thereof would show unto the Court the following:
I. Appellant was informed this date that Appellant’s brief is due August 5, 2015
II. Appellant has previously filed a motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc to correct errors in the judgment and sentence. It is necessary to supplement the record with that motion and the corrected judgment and sentence nunc pro tunc.
III. Appellant is requesting that the clerk supplement the record, and has filed a motion with ACCEPTED 01-15-00397-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/7/2015 3:11:07 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKthis court to supplement the record.
IV.

Appellant is requesting that the Court abate this appeal pending the supplementation of the record with a corrected judgment and sentence. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays t hat this Honorable Court grant this motion, abate the cause, pending s upplementation of the record.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joseph W. Varela JOSEPH W. VARELA Texas Bar No. 20496400 Suite 247 2500 East TC Jester Blvd. Houston, Texas 77008 (713) 957-0440 Fax (713) 957-2862

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served on the Appellate Division of the District Attorney's Office, 1201 Franklin, Houston , Texas 77002, by U.S. Mail, on the 7th day of July, 2015.

/s/ Joseph W. Varela JOSEPH W. VARELA
**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 this Annual Report of Caspian Services, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kerry Doyle, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: January 13, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Kerry Doyle                      |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|                   |   | Kerry Doyle, Chief Executive Officer |
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.                  

###### Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission

*Time And Date:*                     10 a.m.-12:30 p.m.,  November 5, 2010.                

*Place:*                     Harrisburg Hilton and Towers, One North Second Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101.                

*Status:*                     The meeting will be open to the public.                

## Matters To Be Considered

*Portions Open to the Public:*                     The primary purpose of this meeting is to (1) Review the independent auditors' report of Commission's financial statements for fiscal year 2009-2010; (2) Review the Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) Disposal and Storage information for 2009; (3) Consider a proposed budget for fiscal year 20011-2012; (4) Review policy and technical issues regarding LLRW management and disposal; and (5) Elect the Commission's Officers.                

*Portions Closed to the Public:*                     Executive Session, if deemed necessary, will be announced at the meeting.                

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Rich Janati, Administrator of the Commission, at 717-787-2163.                

Rich Janati,

Administrator, Appalachian Compact Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010-26572 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0000-00-P
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**387 CA 10-01205**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

KENNETH ASH, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WINDOW SPECIALIST, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

NESPER, FERBER & DIGIACOMO, LLP, AMHERST (GABRIEL J. FERBER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAW OFFICE OF PHILIP A. MILCH, BUFFALO (PHILIP A. MILCH OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered May 3, 2010 in a breach of contract action. The judgment awarded plaintiff the sum of $184,053.23.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for defendant’s alleged breach of the parties’ employment agreement. Following a bench trial, Supreme Court concluded that defendant failed to pay plaintiff bonuses owed to him, and calculated the amount of those bonuses pursuant to the formula for computing such bonuses set forth in the employment agreement. Under that formula, plaintiff was to receive 50% of “Net Sales” as a bonus, defined as “gross sales received by [defendant] for window installations performed by crews supervised by [plaintiff], less 48% thereof for overhead, less the cost of goods sold by such crews, and less direct labor costs of such crews.”
“ ‘On a bench trial, the decision of the fact-finding court should not be disturbed upon appeal unless it is obvious that the court’s conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence’ ” ( Treat v Wegmans Food Mkts ., Inc. , 46 AD3d 1403, 1404). Contrary to defendant’s contention, a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the court’s conclusion that the expenses identified by defendant as “direct cost of sales” are encompassed within categories of expenses already deducted from “Net Sales” pursuant to the employment agreement. The court therefore properly calculated plaintiff’s bonus without deducting “direct cost of sales” from “Net Sales” in determining the bonus to which plaintiff was**-2- 387 CA 10-01205** 

entitled.

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
No. 112.

#### Daniel R. Mitchell, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Daniel S. Printup, defendant.

[1.] Where the verdict and judgment in *trover*is in the alternative, the defendant must elect either to deliver the property within the time prescribed, or pay the damages in money; and he will not be allowed to deliver in part and pay in part.

[2.] A discrepancy between the verdict and judgment, which docs not prejudice or affect in any way the rights of the defendant, is wholly immaterial ; . and an affidavit of illegality Will not lie on that account....

Illegality, in Floyd Superior Court. Decided by Judge ’Triple, December Term, 1855.

D. S. Printup sued D. R. Mitchell in an action of trover for seven notes of $12 50 each, and one note of $25 made by •one Morris. The Jury found the following verdict:

“ We, the Jury, find for the plaintiff One Hundred and Fifty-six *ffg*Dollars, which may be discharged by returning the notes in twenty days;

•ROBERT WOOD, Foreman.”

*580The judgment entered on .this verdict described the notes as being “ for rent,” and had these words, “ all to be delivered, in twenty days.” The defendant, within twenty days, delivered to the Clerk all the notes, except the twenty-five dollar note, for which he paid the amount due, principal and interest.

Execution having issued for $156 15, defendant filed his affidavit of illegality, on the ground that the judgment varied-from the verdict and from the declaration, by the insertion, of the words above mentioned, and on the ground that he had complied with the verdict, by delivering seven of the notes and paying the amount due on the other.

The Court dismissed the illegality, and on this decision error is assigned.

Alexander, for plaintiff in error.

Underwood, for defendant.

*By*the• *Court.*

Lumpkin, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] It is unquestionably a relaxation of the law and a privilege to defendants, to permit them to deliver up the property in discharge of the damages recovered against them in actionsj of trover. But the verdict being in the alternative, they must elect to do one or the other. They will not be allowed to deliver in part and pay in part. Such an indulgence, were it sanctioned, might and would be frequently and grossly abused. Hence, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court in dismissing this illegality.

[2.] The discrepancy between the declaration, verdict and judgment is wholly immaterial. Mr. Mitchell does not deny but that the $25 note was for rent. But whether he did or did not, that-matter could only have become important, had Mr. Mitchell tendered a note of $25 in discharge of the judgr ment, which was refused by Mr. Printup, because it did .not purport to be for rent. It is not pretended that the defend*581;ant offered any note, whatever, answering to this description. lOn the contrary, this is the identical note which he proposed ■to pay in money.
#### Washington G. Wiley v. Watson Beach, Circuit Judge of Tuscola County.

*Taxes*— Decree *for sale*— Appeal—Mandamus.

An appeal is authorized by the tax law of 1889 from a decree for delinquent taxes, and *mandamus*will not lie to compel the circuit judge to review such a decree, and allow the landowner to answer, he alleging in his petition that the tax is illegal, and that he was not served with subpoena, but not that the petition and tax list were not published.

*Mandamus.*

Submitted June *9, 1891.*

Denied June *10,*1891.

Relator applied for order to show cause why *mandamus*should not issue to compel respondent to allow him to file an answer to the petition of the Auditor General for sale of delinquent tax lands. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

*F. S. Wheat,*for relator.

Per Curiam.

Relator states that certain drain taxes were laid upon his lands that are illegal; that they were returned to the Auditor General, and are included in the proceedings to sell under the law authorizing proceedings *382•by petition of the Auditor General in chancery; that the land lies in Tuscola county, and that relator resides in Lansing; that no personal service of subpcena was had upon him, and that a decree was made and the land sold in 1890, and that he did not know of such fact until March, 1891. He asserts that the drain tax is illegal, and asks for a *mandamus*to compel Hon. Watson Beach to review the decree, and give him leave to answer, etc.

The statute authorizes an appeal. There- is no allegation that the petition and list of lands were not duly advertised. Without now passing upon the question of the validity of the proceedings, — because they are not involved, — we think the remedy by *mandamus*is not proper.
# Sitemap

## September 15, 2020

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2020
- 09
- September 15, 2020

            - Expedition 63 Commander Chris Cassidy calls down to Mission Control
            - Expedition 63 Commander Chris Cassidy replaces bathroom components
            - Expedition 63 Commander Chris Cassidy gives a thumbs up
            - The well-lit cities of Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, Maryland
            - NASA Takes Flight to Study California’s Wildfire Burn Areas
            - Northrop Grumman Cargo Launch to Space Station — Virtual NASA Social
            - NASA’s Lucy mission reaches pivotal milestone
            - Microgravity Investigation of Cement Solidification (MICS) Earth vs Lunar Results
            - NOAA/NASA Sees Dueling Disasters in Wide Angle Satellite Image
            - Space Station 20th: Hispanic Heritage Month
Certification of CFO Pursuant to
 Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14
 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 
 I, Janine Frieh, certify that:
 
 1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Metiscan, Inc.;
 
 2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
 
 3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;
 
 4.   I am 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,  particularly during the period in which this annual 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; and
 
 c)   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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.   I have disclosed, based on my 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):
 
 a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal  controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.
  April 7, 2011


/s/ Janine FriehJanine Frieh

Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.28
 Compensation Arrangements for
Certain Named Executive Officers
   Base Salaries.
  Base SalaryName and Principal Position
    
    (unreduced)
    
    (after 10% reduction)Philip W. Keipp 
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary(1)
    
    $
    250,000
    
    
    $
    225,000Gregory W. Gurley 
Vice President, Product Management and Marketing
    
    $
    225,000
    
    
    $
    202,500Brian D. Robinson 
Vice President, Chief Information Officer
    
    $
    199,500
    
    
    $
    179,500Richard A. Baltz 
Vice President, Internal Audit
    
    $
    190,000
    
    
    $
    171,000
  Bonuses and Equity Awards.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID L. SHEPHARD.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-2181

LT Case No. 2014-CF-001620-A

_____________________________

SHAMEIL SMITH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Lindsay Tygart, Judge.

Shameil Smith, Milton, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

October 17, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, BOATWRIGHT, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________