alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FRANKLIN D. MANUEL

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 0013

_____ ________________________/

Opinion filed January 16, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County

. Jonathan E. Sjostrom , Judge

.

Robert A. Morris, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO

, RAY

, and MAKAR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>     <C>
Registered Name                                                                     Domicile         Owner     %       Status
(business is conducted under the registered names)                                                             held
Digital Financial Service Limited ("DFSL" hereinafter)                              Hong Kong        Sancon     100    Active
Sancon Recycling Pty Ltd.                                                           Australia        Sancon     100    Active
Guang Cheng Int'l Trading Ltd. ("Guang Cheng" hereinafter)                          Hong Kong        Sancon     100    Active
Sancon Resources Recovery (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. ("Sancon SH" hereinafter)            Shanghai         Sancon     70     Active
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 31
                    RULE 13A-14(a) / 15D-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, John J. Joyce, Chief Executive and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
of Ambient Corporation (the "Company"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this 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
Company 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 Company is made known to me by others
within the Company, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my 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 Company's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting;

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of the
Company's board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Company'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 Company's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: May  17, 2004

                                /S/ JOHN J. JOYCE
                                ---------------------------------
                                JOHN J. JOYCE
                                CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                (AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER)
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 60445

**Jonathan Edwards,**

Petitioner

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Burl Cain,** Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections **,**
Respondent

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:20

- CV

- 47

Before **Clement, Elrod** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Jonathan Edwards, Mississippi prisoner # 44510, moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s decision to grant him voluntary d ismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 case, in which he sought to challenge his 2017 conviction and sentence for burglary of a dwelling in case number K15

- 219H. He also moves for leave to proceed in

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 14, 2021
Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 20-60445 Document: 00515822383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2021No. 20

- 60445

2 forma pauperis (IFP). In seeking a COA, Edwards argues only the merits of his § 2254 claims, without raising any error regarding the voluntary dismissal of the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).
“[W]e must consider the basis of our own jurisdicti on, sua sponte if necessary.” Perez v. Stephens , 784 F.3d 276, 280 (5th Cir. 2015). The district court’s decision to grant Edwards voluntary dismissal without prejudice and without any conditions is not a final appealable decision. See Williams v.
Seidenbach , 958 F.3d 341, 343, 349 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc); Mortg. Guar. Ins. Corp. v. Richard Carlyon Co. , 904 F.2d 298, 300 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.
The appeal is **DISMISSED** for lack of jurisdiction, and Edwards’s motions for a COA and leave to proceed IFP are **DE NIED**  as moot

. Case: 20-60445 Document: 00515822383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2021
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, COLOR KINETICS INCORPORATED
I, David K. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer, Color Kinetics Incorporated,certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Color Kinetics Incorporated 2. Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue statement ofmaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this Quarterly Report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin 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 periodspresented in this Quarterly Report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this Quarterly Report is being prepared;  b) [omitted]  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure  d) controls and procedures and presented in this QuarterlyReport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this Quarterly Report based on suchevaluation; anddisclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal controls.           November 15, 2004  /s/ David K. Johnson             Date David K. Johnson     Chief Financial Officer  
19
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lauren E. Low","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lelow\/","title":"NASA Embraces Sweden as Newest Member of Artemis Accords Family","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"HJtCx8oZH0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-embraces-sweden-as-newest-member-of-artemis-accords-family\/\">NASA Embraces Sweden as Newest Member of Artemis Accords Family<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-embraces-sweden-as-newest-member-of-artemis-accords-family\/embed\/#?secret=HJtCx8oZH0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Embraces Sweden as Newest Member of Artemis Accords Family” — NASA\" data-secret=\"HJtCx8oZH0\" 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\/04\/sweden.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### Phillips and Another *v.*Nicholas.

ERROR to the *Rush*Circuit Court.

The only error complained of in this case was, that the judgment below was for too large an amount. The defendant in error was permitted, upon his application, to enter a *remittitur*on the record of this Court, for the surplus, and then the judgment was affirmed, but without costs in error (1).

*W. W. Wick,*for the plaintiffs.

O. *H. Smith,*for the defendant.

(1)

 The Supreme Court of the *United States*'permitted a *remittitur*to be entered in a case similar to that in the text. The following is the formal entry:

“ ‘Supreme Court of the *United States*of *January*term, in the year of our Lord, 1829. Be it remembered, that on the trial of this cause before the Supreme Court of the *United States,*on a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the *United States*for the district of *Kentucky,*-on the 14th day of *February,*in the year aforesaid, it appeared that one of the sixty-eight bills upon which the declaration purported to count severally, to‘ wit, a bill for the amount of 50 dollars, had been omitted in said declaration; the declaration making out a less, sum, and one debt less in number, than the writ claimed or the judgment gave. And hereupon the said *John Ashley*and *John Ella,*jun., defendants in error, by *Daniel J. Caswell*their attorney and counsel in this Court, freely here in Court remit to .the said president and directors of the Bank of the Commonwealth of *Kentucky,*plaintiffs in error as aforesaid in this cause, as well the said debt of 50 dollars so omitted as aforesaid, the residue of the debt aforesaid, together with interest on the said 50 dollars at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, from the 22d day of *September,*in the year of our Lord, 1825, as also damages *pro tanto.*As witness our hands this 14th day of *February,*in the year of our Lord, 1829. *John Ashley*and *John*Ella, jun., by *Daniel J. Caswell,*their attorney and counsel in this Court.’

“Whereupon it is considered, ordered, and adjudged by this Court, that the judgment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed without costs, deducting from the said judgment of the said Circuit Court, the amount so deducted as aforesaid.” *Bank of Kentucky*v. *Ashley et al.*2 Peters, 327.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randal Hardy, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                  |                                                     |                 
|----------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | ----------------
|                  |                                                    
|                  |                                                     |                 
|December 30, 2008 | By:                                                 | /s/ Randal Hardy
|                  | Randal Hardy                                       
|                  | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                  | Principal Executive and Financial Officer          



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Timberline Resources Corporation and will be retained by Timberline Resources Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

*CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Granite City Food &Brewery Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June27, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel H. Bauer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

1.                                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of 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 resultsof operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| Dated:   August 10, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Daniel H. Bauer     |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                                    |   | Daniel H. Bauer         |   |
|                                    |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
9127.

#### Randall Brothers *v.*City of Atlanta.

Decided May 15, 1918.

Affidavit of illegality of execution; from Fulton superior court —Judge Bell. May 10, 1917.

*F. A. Quillian,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. L. Mayson, S. T). Hewlett,*contra.

Jenkins, J.

1. It is within the discretion of the municipal authorities of the City of Atlanta to judge whether or not a pavement is worn out, and to provide for 'its renewal by the use of any material which it may decide upon, the only limitation upon such authority being that such discretion must not be arbitrarily or unreasonably exercised. *Burckhardt*v. *Atlanta,*103 *Ga.*302 (4) (30 S. E. 32); *Regenstein*v. *Atlanta,*98 *Ga.*167 (25 S. E. 428).

2. Where in pursuance of law assessment for such purpose has been made' and execution issued therefor, it is too late for the owner of abutting property to contest, by affidavit of illegality, such discretionary power of the municipal authorities. *Draper*v. *Atlanta,*126 *Ga.*649 (55 S. E. 929).

3. Where the owner of abutting property had sold to the city a strip pf land for the. purpose of widening the street, and by the terms of sale it was provided that the brick pavement as then laid in front of the property should be- removed by and at the cost of the city and relaid upon the new sidewalk to be established, so as to. be in as good condition as it was prior to the sale, the fact that such old material was not actually laid down upon such newly acquired sidewalk would not render nugatory a condemnation .proceeding for the purpose of providing a new and different pavement.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, O. J., and Dulce, J., eoneur.*
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-1055 

ROBERTSON & PENN, INC., 

Appellant, 

v. 

Pete Geren, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, 

Appellee. 

James F. Nagle, Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, LLP, of Seattle, Washington, 

argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Jonathan A. DeMella. 

Kent C. Kiffner, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With him 

on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Mark A. Melnick, Assistant 

Director. 

Appealed from: Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 

Judge Diana S. Dickinson
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-1055 

ROBERTSON & PENN, INC., 

Appellant, 

v. 

Pete Geren, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, 

Appellee. 

Judgment 

ON APPEAL from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 

 

in CASE NO. 55622. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (Before BRYSON and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges, and ST. EVE, District Judge).*

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R.36 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED: June 5, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk 

 

*

 The Honorable Amy J. St. Eve, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 274 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 23, 1997.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill 
(H.R. 2646) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow tax-free 
expenditures from education individual retirement accounts for elementary and 
secondary school expenses, to increase the maximum annual amount of 
contributions to such accounts, and for other purposes. The bill shall be 
considered as read for amendment. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, modified 
by the amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and any further 
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate on the bill, which shall be equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the 
further amendment specified in part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules, 
if offered by Representative Rangel or his designee, which shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the 
question, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 
sixty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; 
and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```