alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  I, Curtis Fox, certify that:
  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Best Computers Services, Inc. , formerly eStaff.com, Inc. ;
  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in 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 periods presented in this quarterly report;
  4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
  5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and
  6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Dated: November 13, 2003
 
 
 /s/Curtis Fox
 Curtis Fox
 president/secretary/treasurer/director
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
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 June 28, 2011

h0620 

# Order

June 28, 2011

142280 & (27)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142280 COA: 299794 Jackson CC: 07-003708-FC KEENAN OMAR KING, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 18, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The
motion for immediate cons ideration is DENIED.
[No. 67521-4-I.

Division One.

November 5, 2012.]

#### Khamsing (Kam) Sitthideth, *Appellant,*v. Cedar River Water and Sewer District, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 10-2-13092-6, Beth M. Andrus, J., entered July 22, 2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Appelwick, J,

concurred in by Cox and Schindler, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Designation of Performance Review Board Standing Register.

# SUMMARY:

This notice provides the Performance Review Board Standing Register for the Department of Energy. This listing supersedes all previously published lists of PRB members.

# DATES:

This appointment is applicable as of September 30, 2017.

Alexander, Kathleen

Allison, Jeffrey

Barhydt, Laura

Black, Steven

Dixon, Robert

Donaldson, Jason

Grose, Amy

Johnson, Thomas

Kaplan, Stan

Lee, Terri

LeBeau, Tracey

Martin, Stephanie

Mays, Cynthia

Mollot, Darren

Moore, Johnny

Nelson-Jean, Natalie

O'Konski, Peter

Reilly, Thomas

Sissel, Ronald

Issued in Washington, DC on September 26, 2017.

Erin S. Moore,

Director, Office of Corporate Executive Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer.

[FR Doc. 2017-23165 Filed 10-24-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2000 and is qualified in is entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                 1,000

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                 SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                            29,349
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                     60,385
<ALLOWANCES>                      (2,157)
<INVENTORY>                       23,704
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 124,957
<PP&E>                           323,378
<DEPRECIATION>                  (177,570)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   292,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             57,643
<BONDS>                          149,314
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                       (47,129)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     292,521
<SALES>                          181,033
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 181,033
<CGS>                            153,786
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    153,786
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                11,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    1,760
<INCOME-TAX>                        (432)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                2,192
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                       2,192
<EPS-BASIC>                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandon Emanuel BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6161.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 6, 2011.

Brandon Emanuel Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Ann Fisher, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brandon Emanuel Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Butler 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.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0326

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 11, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 5 2022

01/05/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0326
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3386 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3386

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan 
                    Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3386

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 1165 2nd Avenue in Des Moines, Iowa, as the ``Iraq and Afghanistan 
                    Veterans Memorial Post Office''.
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22476]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent License

AGENCY: Air Force Materiel Command, Department of the Air Force.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of Part 404 of Title 37, Code of 
Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended; 
the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant Battle 
Sight Technology, LLC of Germantown, OH, a partial exclusive license to 
practice the invention in any right, title and interest the Air Force 
has in: U.S. Patent No. 8,137,597 issued on 20 March 2012 entitled 
``ONE-PART, PRESSURE ACTIVATED CHEMILUMINESCENT MATERIAL,'' by Dr. 
Lawrence Brott.

DATES: Written Objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) 
calendar days after the date of the publication of this Notice.

ADDRESSES: Submit written objections to the Air Force Materiel Command 
Law Office, AFMCLO, 2240 B Street, Rm. 204, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 
45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 255-3733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, 
AFMCLO, 2240 B Street, Rm. 204, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of the Air Force intends to 
grant a license for the patent and pending applications unless a 
written objection is received within fifteen (15) calendar days from 
the date of publication of this Notice. Written objection should be 
sent to: Air Force Materiel Command Law Office, AFMCLO/JAZ, 2240 B 
Street, Rm. 204, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7109; Facsimile: (937) 
255-3733.

Henry Williams,
Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-22476 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Island Life Chiropractic, P.C., as Assignee of Gilbert, Anthony, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>National Liability &amp; Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Law Offices of Moira Doherty, P.C. (Janice P. Rosen, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Terrence C. O'Connor, J.), entered April 22, 2015. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint based upon plaintiff's assignor's failure to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Civil Court denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendant's cross motion. </p><p>Plaintiff correctly argues on appeal that the papers submitted in support of defendant's cross motion failed to establish that the letters scheduling the IMEs of plaintiff's assignor had been properly mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]). Consequently, defendant failed to demonstrate that the IMEs had been properly scheduled.</p><p>However, contrary to plaintiff's further contention, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the papers submitted in support of its motion <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>failed to establish either that the claims at issue had not been timely denied (<a href="../2015/2015_04787.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co.</i>, 25 NY3d 498</a> [2015]), or that defendant had issued timely denial of claim forms that were conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (<a href="../2010/2010_08933.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.</i>, 78 AD3d 1168</a> [2010]; <a href="../2011/2011_51292.htm" target="_blank"><i>Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co.</i>, 32 Misc 3d 128</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 19, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Clifford DILBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John E. POTTER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-16405.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2010.

Clifford Dilbert, lone, CA pro se.

Abraham Aaron Simmons, Assistant U.S., San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Clifford Dilbert appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging disability and age discrimination and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for appointment of counsel. *Johnson v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t,*27 F.3d 415, 416 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dilbert’s motion for appointment of counsel given the unlikeliness of success on the merits. *See Johnson,*27 F.3d at 417 (appointment of counsel in employment action); *Terrell v. Brewer,*935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (28 U.S.C. § 1915 requires exceptional circumstances to warrant appointment of counsel).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dilbert’s motion to compel and requests for a continuance of the summary judgment motion to obtain *235further discovery. *See Preminger v. Peake,*552 F.3d 757, 768 n. 10 (9th Cir.2008) (setting forth standard of review).

On appeal, Dilbert does not challenge the merits of the grant of summary judgment. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (“[Arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

Dilbert’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
JEFFREY COPLIN, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Petitioner, 

Civil Action No. 

BRUCE PEARSON, et al., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

APR 222009 

NANCy MAYER WHITTINGTON Cl£RK 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT' 

09 0744 

This matter is before the Court on petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, petitioner was 

convicted of two counts of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams of cocaine base in 

violation of21 U.S.c. § 841(a)(1) and two counts of distribution of cocaine within 1,000 feet of 

a public playground in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860. CompI. at 1.1 That court imposed 

concurrent sentences on all counts on December 18, 2002. Id. According to petitioner, "the 

judgment and commitment order is null and void because [the] [d]istrict [c]ourt did not have 

subject-matter jurisdiction to prosecute, convict or sentence the plaintiff," and, therefore, his 

"imprisonment violates the United States Constitution." Id. at 2. 

Challenges to the jurisdiction of the federal court imposing sentence and attacks on the 

constitutionality of a federal prisoner's conviction must be presented to the sentencing court in a 

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Ojo v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv.,106 F.3d 680, 

References to the complaint ("CompI.") in this Memorandum Opinion are 

references to the typewritten statement attached to the preprinted form submitted by petitioner. 

1 
, .. 

683 (5th Cir. 1997); Taylor v. United States Board of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952). 

Section 2255 provides specifically that: 

[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act 

of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the 

sentence was imposedjn violation of the Constitution or laws of the 

United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose 

such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum 

authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may 

move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or 

correct the sentence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (emphasis added). Moreover, the ability to challenge a conviction by a motion 

to vacate sentence generally precludes a challenge by a petition for habeas corpus: 

[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner 

who is authorized to apply for reliefby motion pursuant to [28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255], shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has 

failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, 

or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the 

remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of 

his detention. 

28 U.S.c. § 2255 (emphasis added). 

The Court therefore will dismiss the petition without prejudice. An Order consistent with 

this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately on this same date. 

Date: (.} rv-~ ,.r; l-c>O 9 

2
EXHIBIT 99.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Royster-Clark, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Walter R. Vance, Principal Financial 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 Exchanges 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 Company.





/s/    WALTER R. VANCE


---

Walter R. Vance


Principal Financial Officer


August 12, 2002