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

**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Patrick W. Hurley, Chief Financial Officer ofSport-Haley, Inc., certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Sport-Haley, Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)            Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)            Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)            Disclosedin 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)            Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)            Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date:  February 12, 2007
| /s/ PATRICK W. HURLEY                          |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Patrick W.  Hurley                             |   |
| Chief Financial  Officer                       |   |
| *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

####  

----
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________

DR. MERVYN JACOBSON, a citizen of 

Australia, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TODD COX, an individual residing within 

the State of Colorado,

 Defendant - Appellant,

and

XY INC., a Colorado corporation; 

INGURAN LLC, 

 Defendants.

No. 10-1341

(D.C. No. 1:07-CV-02670-WYD-BNB)

(D. Colo.)

_______________________________

ORDER

_______________________________

Appellant’s motion to dismiss the captioned appeal is granted. Each party shall bear 

its own costs.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 23, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 10-1341 Document: 01018482137 Date Filed: 08/23/2010 Page: 1
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 23, 2009

l1116 

# Order

November 23, 2009

139380

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139380 COA: 291927 Monroe CC: 08-036958-FH ANTHONY J. CREWS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for le ave to appeal the June 4, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

HOLIFIELD, STARITA, and HACKEL

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Jackson D. PACE

Lance Corporal (E-3), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

No. 202200025

_________________________

Decided: 19 May 2022

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary 

Military Judge: 

Nicholas S. Henry

Sentence adjudged 29 October 2021 by a special court-martial convened 

at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, consisting of a 

military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment: reduction to E-1, confinement for 37 days,1 and a bad-conduct discharge.

For Appellant: 

Major Brian L. Farrell, USMC

 

1 Appellant was credited with having served 7 days of pretrial confinement.
United States v. Pace, NMCCA No. 202200025

Opinion of the Court

2

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under 

NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2(a).

_________________________

PER CURIAM:

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law 

and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial 

rights occurred.2

The findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

 

2 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 19, 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00492

- CR

Nora Lee Lopez , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 331ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court

. Nora Lee Lopez has

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court grants the motion, allows Nora Lee

Lopez to withdraw her notice of appeal, and dismisses the appeal. Because appellant is indigent

and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 29, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

KEITH JUDD, Democratic Candidate

for President of USA,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BILL RICHARDSON, Governor of the

State of New Mexico; ATTORNEY

GENERAL; FRANCISCO J.

QUINTANA, Warden FCC Beaumont

Low,

 Respondents - Appellees. 

No. 10-2135

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00462-BB-RHS)

ORDER

This appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute. See 10th Cir. R. 42.1. 

Mr. Judd did not file a timely and complete response as ordered by this court on 

June 17, 2010. A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this

court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-2135 Document: 01018467320 Date Filed: 07/29/2010 Page: 1
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with Amendment No.1 to the Annual Report of NexCen Brands, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned, to the best of his knowledge and in the capacities and on
      the
      dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 results of operations of the
                Company.








/s/
                Robert W. D’Loren
            
            April
                30, 2007Robert
                W. D’LorenChief
                Executive Officer/s/
                David B. Meister
            
            April
                30, 2007David
                B. MeisterChief
                Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      NexCen Brands, Inc. and will be retained by NexCen Brands, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### John Broyles *v.*Eliza Stonestreet.

Guardian — Interest on Ward’s Money.

A guardian should pay interest on his ward’s money remaining in his hands after her marriage.

APPEAL EROM JEEEERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT.

October 5, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Robertson:

No consistent deduction from the testimony will allow the presumption that the little capital in the guardian’s hands was necessarily encroached on for the ward’s maintenance or comfort; and, from all the facts, it seems to this court that he could not reasonably expect more than exemption from interest as long as his *368ward remained on Ms hands unmarried. This would leave $100 in Ms hands on the day of her marriage. And certainly, as he was then relieved of all care of her, he ought to account for legal interest on that fund from the time of her marriage. The commissioner’s report, being on this basis, ought to have been, as it. was, approved and carried out as the judgment of the court below.

We, therefore, see no error in the judgment prejudicial to the appellant.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
EX-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 Annual Report of Auteo Media, Inc. (the "Corporation") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald Bell, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 Corporation.

/s/ Donald Bell

_____________________________
Donald Bell, President, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer

May 21, 2003
EquiMed, Inc.

                           EXHIBIT 11

      STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

            (in thousands, except per share amounts)

                            Three months ended   Six months ended
                                 June 30,            June 30,    
                             1996        1997     1996      1997
Primary:

  Weighted average common
    shares outstanding       4,174    4,527       4,452    4,600
  Net effect of dillutive
    stock options and
    warrants-based on the
    treasury stock method
    using average market
    price                       47       --          26       --
  Weighted average common
    share and equivalent
    outstanding              4,221    4,527       4,478    4,600

  Net Income                 2,711    2,975       3,092    5,777

  Net income per share        0.64      .66        0.69     1.26

Fully Diluted:
  Weighted average common
    shares outstanding       4,730    4,527       4,452    4,600

  Net effect of dillutive
    stock options and
    warrants-based on the
    treasury stock method
    using average market
    price                        4       --          23       --
  Weighted average common
    share and equivalent
    outstanding              4,734    4,527       4,475     4,600

  Net Income                 2,711    2,974       3,092     5,777

  Net income per share        0.57     0.66        0.69      1.26
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Alan Nelson Crotts V. John F. Healey, Jr. and Jeff Strange

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00076

- CV

Trial court case n umber: 14

- DCV

- 217232

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

Date motion filed: October 12, 2015

Party filing motion: Appellant, Alan Nelson Crotts

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DE NIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Jennings, Higley, and Brown

Date: November 1 7 , 2015
<PAGE>
                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                               SECURITY AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 1 is made as of September 30, 1999, between Aims
Community College Foundation and Training Devices International, Inc. (also
known as Training Devices, Inc.).

         The parties have previously entered into a Security Agreement dated
September 14, 1999 relating to a promissory note in the amount of $2,020,000
dated September 14, 1999.

         In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants dated in this
Amendment, the parties agree as follows:

         1. Under the heading "Ownership and Duties Toward Property," the
fifth paragraph is hereby deleted. The deleted paragraph reads: You may
demand immediate payment of the debt(s) if the debtor is not a natural person
and without your prior written consent (1) a beneficial interest in the
debtor is sold or transferred or (2) there is a change in either the identity
or number of members of a partnership or (3) there is a change in ownership
of more than 25 percent of the voting stock of a corporation.

         2. In all other respects the Security Agreement remains unchanged
and in full force and effect.

         This Amendment is executed as of September 30, 1999.


AIMS COMMUNITY COLLEGE                 TRAINING DEVICES INTERNATIONAL,
FOUNDATION                             INC. also known as Training Devices, Inc.

By:                                    By:
   --------------------------             --------------------------
Name:                                     Ron Ellington, CEO
     ------------------------
Title:
      -----------------------

<PAGE>

         The following undersigned has read and consents to the foregoing
Amendment No. 1 to Security Agreement, which Security Agreement has
previously been assigned to the undersigned by AIMS Community College
Foundation.


                                       1ST CHOICE BANK

                                       By:
                                          ---------------------------
                                       Its:
                                           --------------------------
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM PETTY.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Haines and Others *v.*Gurley.

*Wednesday, May*27.

A plea in abatement may not only be filed at any time before the day on which the cause is set for trial, but it may also be filed at any time on that day, whether the Court be in session or not, unless the cause shall have been called in its order and regularly disposed of.

It is not necessary that the affidavit, attached to a plea in abatement, should be entitled of the term at which it was filed.

ERROR to the *Wayne*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

This was an action of debt. On the day to which the cause was set for trial, but not until after the adjournment of the Court, the defendant filed a plea in abatement to the form of the writ. On a subsequent day, the plaintiff moved to set aside the plea, because the affidavit attached to it was not entitled of the term of the Court at which it was filed, and because the plea was not filed until after the adjournment of the Court. The Court set aside the plea, and the defendant not pleading over, judgment was rendered against him.

The statute requires pleas in abatement to be filed on or before the *day*to which the cause is set for trial. They may be filed at any time before the day, whether the Court be in session or not, and so, we suppose, they may be filed at any time on the day set for the trial of the cause, unless it shall have been called in its order and regularly disposed *2700f. Jn *England,*where time is given to a defendant to plead a certain day, the party hais the whole of that day in which to file his plea. 3 Ch. Gen. Pr. 704. So, where a declaration has been delivered, and notice to plead within four' days, the defendant has the whole time in which to plead. Tidd’s Pr. 421, 2. And this indulgence extends to pleas in abatement; though in regard to such pleas, the days are reckoned inclusively. *Harbord*v. *Perigal, 5*T. R. 210. We think by giving such a construction to our statute, that is, that a party has the whole day to plead without reference to the sessions of the Court, much inconvenience which' might otherwise result to suitors, will be avoided.

*C. B. Smith*and *S. W. Parker,*for the plaintiffs.

*J. S.*Newman, for the defendant.

The objection to the affidavit should not have been sustained. The manner of entitling an affidavit in *England*is a matter of practice, liable at any time to be changed by the Courts. The plea and affidavit in this case are in the form commonly used in the Courts of the state, and sufficiently accurate for all the purposes of justice.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the motion to set aside the plea set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2004  (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial  condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                 /s/ Timothy B. Shannon
                                 ----------------------
                                 Timothy B. Shannon
                                 Chief Executive Officer

October 14, 2004




                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2004  (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial  condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                 /s/ John Ervin
                                 ----------------------
                                 John Ervin
                                 Chief Financial Officer

October 14, 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL R. JONES,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary of

Agriculture; United States Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-16262

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01590-KJMCMK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Michael R. Jones appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his

employment action as duplicative. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review for an abuse of discretion, Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487

FILED

DEC 3 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jones’ action as

duplicative of his claims in Jones v. Forest Service, No. 2:11-cv-2972-GEB-CMK,

because the claims, relief sought, and parties are the same. See Adams, 487 F.3d at

688-94 (listing the factors for determining whether claims are duplicative,

explaining that two events arise out of the same nucleus of facts if they are related

and can be conveniently tried together, and noting the district court’s broad

discretion in deciding how to dispose of a later-filed, duplicative action).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jones’ motions for

reconsideration because Jones failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.

1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

Jones’ motion for corrections, filed on September 18, 2014, and his motion

to consolidate this appeal with appeal nos. 14-16599 and 14-16875, filed on

October 8, 2015, are denied.

AFFIRMED. 

2 13-16262