alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, COLOR KINETICS INCORPORATEDI, David K. Johnson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Color Kinetics Incorporated 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [omitted]  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.     August 02, 2005   /s/ David K. Johnson          Date   David K. Johnson    Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2****Written Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**Theundersigned, the Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Assistant Secretary of WebsterPreferred Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the datehereof:(a) the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 filed on thedate hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.           /s/ Gregory S. Madar             Gregory S. Madar      Senior Vice President,      Chief Accounting Officer and Assistant Secretary      Principal Financial and Accounting Officer      November 09, 2006  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toWebster Preferred Capital Corporation and will be retained by Webster Preferred Capital Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
21
Order entered January 14, 2020

In the

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00463-CR

GERALD JEFFERSON MUNOZ MONTANO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-00457-Y

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 10, 2020 second motion for extension of time to 

file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief due on or before February 

18, 2020. Failure to file a brief by that date may result in the appeal being abated for a trial court 

hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(3).

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statement of operations
for the six months ending July 4, 1998, and such is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001051260
<NAME>                        GLENOIT ASSET CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                         83
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               83
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 32,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,812
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     29,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   32,305
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,083
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,099)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,177
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,162
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,015
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,015
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  4.015
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  4.015
        

</TABLE>
#### Morris *v.*Knight.

In an action *ex contractu*against two, the sheriff’s return of “not found” as to one does not authorize the plaintiff, under the statute of 1817, to proceed to judgment against the other alone; a return of “no inhabitant of the coussty” being necessary, in such a case, by that statute.

ERROR to the *Franklin*Circuit Court.

Caswell, for the plaintiff,

stone, for the defendant.

Blackford, J.

This was an action of debt for rent by the plaintiff below against *Bethuel F. Morris*and *Daniel Hankins,*founded on a joint contract made by the defendants. The plaintiff suggested on the record the sheriff’s return, that *Hankins*was not found in his county.. *Morris*appeared and filed a general demurrer to the declaration, and the plain tiff joined in demurrer. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff against *Morris*alone.

The principal error assigned in this cause is, that the action is founded on a joint demand, and the judgment is against one of the defendants only. In this case the contract was joint, and the, only reason for taking judgment against one of the defendants alone was the sheriff’s return, that the other was not found in his county. The act of assembly only authorizes this mode of proceeding in actions against joint or joint and several obligors, when the sheriff or other officer returns that any of the 'defendants are “not inhabitants of his county.” Ind. Stat. 1817, p. 25. This is a remedial statute, and we aré disposed to give it a liberal construction. The provisions may be considered applicable to ail persons jointly, or jointly and severally, liable on contracts by deed or otherwise. It must appear, however, by the return, that the defendants not served with process are “not inhabitants of the county.” That is not the fact in the case before us; and the proceedings, therefore, subsequent to the return of the writ are erroneous. 2 Bibb, 227. — 3 Bibb, 363(1).

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the return of the writ are set aside, with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

(1)

 Vide *Barton*v. *Petit,*7 Cranch, 194. In *England*when there are two defendants, and one only has appeared or is in custody, the plaintiff, after proceeding to outlawry against the other, may declare against the one has appeared, alone, stating the outlawry of the other in the commencement of the declaration. *Haigh*v. *Conway,*15 East, *1.*— Goldsmith v. *Levy,*4 Taunt. *299.*— Fort v. *Oliver,*1 M. and Selw. 242. — 2 Arch. Pr. 163. The *Indiana*statute of 1807, pp. 333, 334, substituted the return of “non est inventus” for the *English*process of outlawry. By the statute of 1817, p. 25, the return was required to be “no inhabitant of the county.” The statute of 1823, p. 290, makes the return of “non est inventus,” with a suggestion thereof on the record, sufficient.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,423
<SECURITIES>                                        46
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                       243
<INVENTORY>                                        934
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,421
<PP&E>                                          82,922
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,141
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,009
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,142
<SALES>                                         43,964
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,964
<CGS>                                           35,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,224
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,112
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,410)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,261)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,149)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

OMANDO WESBY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-614

[July 13, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael I. Rothschild, Judge; L.T. Case No. 94-

190180CF10A.

Omando Wesby, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

GROSS, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

ADMINISTRATOR A DEPUTY 

ADMINISTRATOR 

I I I 

-m--q I 

IXtc”,IYt 06ll<E. I 1 I I I . 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

RICHARD A. SPRAGUE, ESQUIRE AND 

LYNNE M. ABRAHAM, ESQUIRE, 

 Appellants

v.

R. SETH WILLIAMS, 

 Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 18 EAP 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of June, 2017, the Application for Leave to File a Brief 

in Reply is granted. Notice of Appeal is transferred to the Superior Court. See

Commonwealth v. Spano, 701 A.2d 566 (Pa. 1997); Pa.R.A.P. 751(a).
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Anna C. Heiney","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/aheiney\/","title":"Billy Stover","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5RuQZFPmvB\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/kennedy-biographies-stover\/\">Billy Stover<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/kennedy-biographies-stover\/embed\/#?secret=5RuQZFPmvB\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Billy Stover” — NASA\" data-secret=\"5RuQZFPmvB\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/ksc-20211130-ph-ked01_0001.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":901}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7610

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR OSCAR SWAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CR-95-365)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Oscar Swan, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Swan, No. CR-95-365 (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 1997).

Our decision intimates nothing about the retroactivity of the oneyear limitations period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1997),

since Appellant filed this action over one year after the effective

date of the statute. 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.

DISMISSED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jim Banke","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jim-bankenasa-gov\/","title":"NASA is With You When You Fly, Even on Mars","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UXBdDRRrsO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/solar-system\/nasa-is-with-you-when-you-fly-even-on-mars\/\">NASA is With You When You Fly, Even on Mars<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/solar-system\/nasa-is-with-you-when-you-fly-even-on-mars\/embed\/#?secret=UXBdDRRrsO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA is With You When You Fly, Even on Mars” — NASA\" data-secret=\"UXBdDRRrsO\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/mars_helicopter_animation_with_2020_rover-high.gif?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michelle Zajac","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mzajac\/","title":"Experience the Launch of NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-8 Mission\u00a0\u00a0","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"f3TJnOLEy8\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/experience-the-launch-of-nasas-spacex-crew-8-mission\/\">Experience the Launch of NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-8 Mission\u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/station\/experience-the-launch-of-nasas-spacex-crew-8-mission\/embed\/#?secret=f3TJnOLEy8\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Experience the Launch of NASA\u2019s SpaceX Crew-8 Mission\u00a0\u00a0” — NASA\" data-secret=\"f3TJnOLEy8\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/53285589053-0b3c3266c4-o.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}