alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 20 41

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Jo aq ui n R am on Guev ara- Asc en ci o
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.
Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 12 , 20 15 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 20 , 20 15 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, COLLO TON, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

El Sal va do ran ci ti zen Jo aq ui n Ram on Gue va ra-As cen ci o fai le d t o a pp ear f or
a de po rta ti on he ari ng in 19 94 , an d an or de r was is su ed in ab se nt ia fo r hi s de po rta ti on

. In 20 12 , Gue va ra-As cen ci o so ug ht to reo pe n th e m at t e r, cl ai m in g th at he ha d no t
rece iv ed no ti ce of th e de po rta ti on he ari ng , an d arg ui ng th at he w a s e l i g ib le fo r
as y lu m

. The Im

m ig rat io n Ju dg e de ni ed rel ie f, an d th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal sdi sm is se d. Afte r care fu l rev ie w, we fin d no a b u s e o f d i sc ret io n. See Kan y i v.

Gon zal es , 40 6 F.3 d 10 87 , 10 89 -9 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). The reco rd be fo re th e Im

m ig rat io n J u d g e an d th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s co nt ai ns
ev id en ce gi vi ng ris e to a st ro ng pr es um pt io n th at th e he ari ng no ti ce was de li ve red to Gue va ra-As cen ci o by cert ifi ed m ai l, an d he ha s no t r e b u t te d th at pr es um pt io n. He al so fai l e d t o pr es en t an y pr ev io us ly un av ai la bl e ev id en ce of ch an ge d co un try
co nd it io ns f

o r p u r p o s es of reo pe ni ng as y lu m pr oc eed in gs

. See Li Yun Lin v. Mu ka se y , 52 6 F .3d 11 64 , 11 65 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) (st an da rd of r ev ie w).

Acco rd in gl y , we den y

th e p et it io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23748-23749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11843]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act; Notice of Matter To Be Deleted From the Agenda of a 
Previously Announced Agency Meeting

Time and Date:  11:15 a.m., Thursday, May 21, 2009.

Place:  Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

Status:  Closed.

Matter to be Deleted: 3. Personnel (1). Closed pursuant to some or all 
of the following: Exemptions (2) and (6).

[[Page 23749]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,
Board Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-11843 Filed 5-18-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Written Statement of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)
  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the Quarter Ended March
31, 2006 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ David W. ThompsonDavid W. ThompsonChairman and Chief Executive OfficerDecember 7, 2006
#### Business Cabling, Inc. v. Yokeley

Case below: 182 N.C. App.-(17 April 2007)

No. 233P07

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-1255)

Denied 08/23/07
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB AND THE ACCOMPANYING NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                             189
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      588
<ALLOWANCES>                                        17
<INVENTORY>                                        591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,786
<PP&E>                                           1,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                     637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,378
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,857
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,881)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,354
<SALES>                                          3,403
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,403
<CGS>                                            2,865
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (190)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 125
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,413)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      19
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,394)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
        

</TABLE>
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 the Quarterly Report of BSD Medical Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold
R. Wolcott, President (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby
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.







/s/ Harold R.
      WolcottHarold
      R. WolcottPresident
      (Principal Executive Officer)January
      14, 2010







---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of K.N.C.

Appellate case number: 01-17-00520-CV

Trial court case number: C2012-0499A

Trial court: 22nd District Court of Comal County

On October 6, 2017, appellant filed her brief. Appellee, the Office of the Attorney General, 

had a briefing deadline of November 6, 2017 in which to file its brief, but no brief has been filed. 

On November 20, 2017, we notified appellee that we would set the case for submission without 

an appellee’s brief unless appellee filed (1) a motion to extend time to file its brief or (2) its brief 

accompanied by a motion to extend time. Appellee has neither filed a motion to extend time or its 

appellee’s brief. Accordingly, the case is hereby set at issue. 

The time for filing the APPELLEE’S brief has expired. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). 

Further, appellee’s deadline for responding to the notice issued by this Court on November 20, 

2017, requiring appellee to file either a brief or a motion to extend time to file its brief, has expired. 

Accordingly, this case is now at issue and ready to be set for submission.

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: February 8, 2018
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard W. Koe, certify to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of TigerLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of TigerLogic Corporation for the periods presented therein.

Date: February 11, 2010



By:

/s/ Richard W. KoeName:

Richard W. KoeTitle:

Interim President and Chief Executive Officer


I, Thomas Lim, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
TigerLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TigerLogic Corporation for the periods presented therein.

Date: February 11, 2010



By:

/s/ Thomas LimName:

Thomas LimTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
950 A.2d 100

#### Darren Joseph TATE v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 34,

Sept. Term, 2008.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 12, 2008.

Celia Anderson Davis, Assistant Public Defender (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender), Baltimore, for petitioner.

Carrie J. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen.), Baltimore, for respondent.

*107Submitted before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, JOHN C. ELDRIDGE, (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

PER CURIAM

ORDER.

The Court having considered and granted the petition for writ of certiorari in the above-captioned case, it is this 12th day of June, 2008,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, vacated, and the case is remanded to that Court for further consideration in light of *Lawrence Price, Jr. v. State of Maryland,*405 Md. 10, 949 A.2d 619 (2008). Costs in this Court to be paid by Respondent, and costs in the Court of Special Appeals to abide the result.

Judge MURPHY did not participate in the consideration of this matter.
#### John R. WILCOX, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nancy ROUSE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-7120.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 23, 2006.

John R. Wilcox, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Douglas Eason, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

John R. Wilcox, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilcox 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 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                            A-FEM MEDICAL CORPORATION
                       CALCULATIONS OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

                                             For The Three Months                        For The Six Months
                                                Ended June 30                              Ended June 30,
                                    ---------------------------------------  -------------------------------------------
                                          2001                 2000                 2001                   2000
                                    ------------------  -------------------  --------------------   --------------------
<S>                                 <C>                 <C>                  <C>                    <C>
Actual weighted average
   shares outstanding for the period     9,805,349           9,579,708            9,648,613               9,567,335
Dilutive common and preferred
   stock, options
   and warrants using the                       --                   -                   --                       -
   treasury stock method(1)
                                    ------------------  -------------------  --------------------   --------------------

Total shares used in per
   share calculations                    9,805,349           9,579,708            9,648,613               9,567,335

Net loss                               $  (267,821)        $  (439,779)          $ (575,396)          $    (868,718)

Basic and diluted net loss per share   $     (0.03)        $     (0.05)          $    (0.06)          $       (0.09)
                                    ==================  ===================  ====================   ====================
</TABLE>





(1)      Preferred stock, warrants and options outstanding are not included, as
         the effect would be anti-dilutive.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 20, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00014

- CV

Virginia BRETADO,

Appellant

v.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 09066

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

P atricia O. Alvarez , Justice (recused)

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Appellant’s motion for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

I t is so ORDERED on this 20th day of March, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED T O:

____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### In the Matter of Miguel Bermudez, Appellant, v Dora B. Schriro et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 243]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J), entered March 20, 2012, denying the petition to direct respondent New York City Department of Correction (DOC) to appoint petitioner as a correction officer, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner argues that, having prevailed in an administrative appeal of the determination that he was psychologically unqual*404ified for a position as a correction officer based on an arrest that was dismissed and sealed pursuant to CPL 170.55, he is entitled to a new psychological evaluation and reconsideration of his candidacy “with no reference to the nullified arrest.” Because petitioner did not assert this specific argument before DOC or the article 78 court — he argued that the improper disqualification entitled him to an appointment as a correction officer — the claim is unpreserved for our review *(see Matter of Prendergast v City of New York,*44 AD3d 414 [1st Dept 2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 818 [2008], *cert denied*553 US 1066 [2008]; *Green v New York City Police Dept.,*34 AD3d 262 [1st Dept 2006]).

In any event, petitioner failed to establish either that he has a right to have the circumstances underlying his non-appointment expunged from the record before DOC or that DOC’s determination not to appoint him, after restoring him to the eligible list and considering him on three occasions (along with other candidates), was arbitrary and capricious and therefore subject to a judicial direction for reconsideration *(see Matter of Andriola v Ortiz,*82 NY2d 320, 325 [1993], *cert denied*511 US 1031 [1994]). Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.
National Intelligence University
						The Center of Academic Life for the Intelligence Community
																									About UsMenu Toggle
Office of the President
	Board of Visitors
	Vision and Mission
	Locations
	Accreditation
	NIU History
AcademicsMenu Toggle
Degrees
	Certificate in Intelligence Studies
	Schools
AdmissionsMenu Toggle
Apply Here
	Admission FAQs
StudentsMenu Toggle
Academic Calendar
	Academic Catalog
	NIU Library
	Graduation Information
	Student Senate
	Blackboard Login
	NIU Online Store
ResearchMenu Toggle
Caracristi Institute
	Caracristi Monographs
	Intelligence Jumpstart Podcast
	NI Press
	NIU Library
	Research Fellows Program
AlumniMenu Toggle
NIU Online Store
	Thesis Requests
	Transcript Requests
Contact Us
				Search for:
		Search
			Search 
National Intelligence University
						The Center of Academic Life for the Intelligence Community
																									Main Menu DegreeExplore NIU Degree Programs
				
				Click below to read more information about NIU Degree programs.
		Bachelor of Science in Intelligence
		Master of Science in Strategic Intelligence
		Master of Science and Technology Intelligence
		Note:  All prospective NIU students must meet the eligibility criteria before applying.
 About UsMenu Toggle
Office of the President
	Board of Visitors
	Accreditation
	Vision and Mission
	Location
	History
AcademicsMenu Toggle
Degree
	Certificate Of Intelligence Studies
	Schools
AdmissionsMenu Toggle
Apply here
	Admissions FAQs
StudentsMenu Toggle
Academic Calendar
	Academic Catalog
	NIU Library
	Graduation Information
	Student Senate
	Blackboard Login
	NIU Online Store
ResearchMenu Toggle
Caracristi Institute
	Caracristi Monographs
	Intelligence JumpStart Podcast
	NI Press
	NIU Library
AlumniMenu Toggle
NIU Online Store
	Thesis Requests
	Transcript Request
Contact Us
 Quick Links:Apply Now2023/24 NIU Academic Catalog
Academics:Bachelor of Science in Intelligence DegreeMaster of Science of Strategic IntelligenceMaster of Science and Technology Intelligence DegreeCertificate in Intelligence Studies
School:College of Strategic IntelligenceSchool of Science and Technology Intelligence
					Office of Admissions:Roberdeau HallWashington, DC 20511
Phone: (301) 243-2094Fax: (301) 227-7067Email:  NIU_Admissions@niu.odni.gov
Office of the Registrar:Phone: (301) 243-2093Fax: (301) 227-7067Email: NIU_Enrollments@niu.odni.gov
Accessibility / Section 508
ODNI Privacy Policy Web Policies
NI-U.edu Web Policies
External Links Disclaimer
						National Intelligence University © 2024
EXHIBIT 31.2

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, John W. Swatek, certify that: 

 
| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hanover Direct, Inc.; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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 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 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 our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee 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 of internal control 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 control over financial reporting.

 
|  

 

/s/ John W. Swatek

John W. Swatek

Senior Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

 

  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date: May 16, 2006