alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2
 
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE SHAW GROUP INC.
 PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. SECTION 7241, AS ADOPTED
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Brian K. Ferraioli, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2012 (the “report”) of The Shaw Group Inc. (the “registrant”);
 
 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;
 
 /s/ Brian K. Ferraioli

Brian K. Ferraioli

Chief Financial Officer
 
 Date: December 21, 2012
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00040-CR

Daverne Foy, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-DC-19-301573, THE HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Daverne Foy, who has not been finally sentenced, seeks to appeal the 

trial court’s order granting the State’s pretrial motion for continuance.

The standard for determining whether a Texas appellate court has jurisdiction in a 

criminal case “is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is 

authorized by law.” Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Because 

this standard extends to interlocutory appeals, “courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to

review interlocutory orders in criminal cases unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted 

by law.” Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). No such grant exists for 

an appeal of an order granting a motion for continuance. See Parker v. State, No. 01-16-00137-

CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11056, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 11, 2016, no pet.) 

(mem. op.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction defendant’s appeal from trial court’s grant of 
2

State’s motion for continuance). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Kelly, and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: March 3, 2023

Do Not Publish
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEI MU, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK GARLAND, 

Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 20-71934

Agency No. A200-801-171

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 4, 2021**

Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. 

Wei Mu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of 

her application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and, 

reviewing the BIA’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 6 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

substantial evidence,” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th 

Cir. 2017) (citation omitted), we deny the petition. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Mu was not 

credible and thus ineligible for relief. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 

(9th Cir. 2003). Mu repeatedly testified that she was alone in her home when five 

policemen arrested her for hosting an illegal religious gathering in 2010. Her 

asylum application, however, stated that she was with her family during the arrest. 

“[I]nconsistencies regarding events that form the basis of the asylum claim are 

sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination.” Zamanov v. Holder, 

649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). And contrary to Mu’s contention, this was not 

an “utterly trivial inconsistency,” like a spelling or typographical error. See 

Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010). 

In addition, Mu testified that she was employed at the Water Bureau from 

1983 to 2010, despite her visa application stating that she stopped working there in 

1999. When asked about this, Mu provided inconsistent testimony. She first told 

the court that she left the department in 1999 but came back, and that she did not 

know why her application was false. Yet at a subsequent hearing, she admitted 

that that explanation had been a lie, and that a middle agent had instructed her to

fabricate her employment dates to better her chances of obtaining a visa. Mu may 

have had reason to fabricate her employment dates when trying to obtain the visa, 
3 

but not to lie in court after she had been away from danger for more than six years. 

See Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 2011). Given the 

contradictions in Mu’s accounts, and the insufficiency of her purportedly 

corroborative evidence, the record supports the agency’s denial of asylum.

 PETITION DENIED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 20 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk Octo ber 20 , 2017

15 6500 ( 45 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 15 6500

v COA: 3 37966

Wayne CC: 12

- 005176

- FC

BRANDON LEWIS CAIN

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of defendant

- appellant to “accept pro per

pleadings as is” is GRANTED

. The amended application submitted on October 18 , 2017

, is accepted for filing

.
### §254. Administration, protection, and development

The administration, protection, and development of the Olympic National Park shall be exercised under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior by the National Park Service, subject to the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), entitled "An Act to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes",1 as amended.

(June 29, 1938, ch. 812, §4, 52 Stat. 1242.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535), entitled "An Act to establish a National Park Service, and for other purposes", referred to in text, is act Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, 39 Stat. 535, known as the National Park Service Organic Act, which enacted sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this title and provisions set out as a note under section 100101 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs. Sections 1 to 4 of the Act were repealed and restated as section 1865(a) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and section 100101(a), chapter 1003, and sections 100751(a), 100752, 100753, and 102101 of Title 54 by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 4(a)(1), 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3260, 3272. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables. For disposition of former sections of this title, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

1 See References in Text note below.
§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel. ( a ) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government. Special Counsels shall agree that their responsibilities as Special Counsel shall take first precedence in their professional lives, and that it may be necessary to devote their full time to the investigation, depending on its complexity and the stage of the investigation.
( b ) The Attorney General shall consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure that a Special Counsel undergoes an appropriate background investigation and a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues. A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a “confidential employee” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).
EX-4.3



 Exhibit 4.3 

DICERNA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 

2016 INDUCEMENT PLAN 
  

	1.	PURPOSE OF PLAN 

 The purpose of this Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2016 Inducement Plan
(this “Plan”) of Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), is to advance the interests of the Corporation by providing a material inducement for the best available individuals to
join the Corporation and its subsidiaries as employees by affording such individuals an opportunity to acquire a proprietary interest in the Corporation 
  

	2.	ELIGIBILITY 

 The Plan will be reserved solely for awards to persons whom the Corporation
may issue shares of common stock, par value $0.0001 per share, of the Corporation (“Common Stock”) without stockholder approval pursuant to Rule 5635(c)(4) of the NASDAQ Listing Rules, or any successor rule relating to inducement
awards. 
  

	3.	SHARE LIMITS; GRANT OF AWARDS 

 The maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be
delivered pursuant to awards granted to Eligible Persons under this Plan is 250,000 shares (the “Share Limit”), such limits to be subject to adjustment as contemplated by Section 4.3, Section 7.1 and Section 8.10 of
the 2014 Plan. 
  

	4.	EFFECTIVE DATE 

 This Plan is effective as of March 4, 2016, the date of its
approval by the Board (the “Effective Date”). Unless earlier terminated by the Board, this Plan shall terminate at the close of business on the day before the tenth anniversary of the Effective Date. After the termination of this
Plan either upon such stated expiration date or its earlier termination by the Board, no additional awards may be granted under this Plan, but previously granted awards (and the authority of the Administrator with respect thereto, including the
authority to amend such awards) shall remain outstanding in accordance with their applicable terms and conditions and the terms and conditions of this Plan. 
  

	5.	OTHER TERMS 

 Except as expressly set forth herein, the terms of the Plan shall be
identical to the terms of the 2014 Plan, and such terms are incorporated by reference into this Plan (with such non-substantive changes as are necessary to reflect their usage in this Plan instead of the 2014 Plan); provided, however, that no ISOs
shall be awarded under this Plan. In the event of any conflict between the provisions in this Plan and those of the 2014 Plan, the provisions of this Plan shall govern. 
  

	6.	DEFINED TERMS 

 6.1. “2014 Plan” means the Dicerna
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Amended and Restated 2014 Performance Incentive Plan, as may be amended from time to time. 
 6.2.
“Employee” means any person whom the Corporation or any Subsidiary classifies as an employee (including an officer) for employment tax purposes, whether or not that classification is correct. 







 6.3. “Director” means a member of the board of directors of the
Corporation or any Subsidiary. 
 6.4. Defined terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the 2014 Plan.
ELISE M. KINSEY, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Plaintiff, 

FILED 

APR 232009 

NANCY MAYER WHITTINGT 

U.S. DISTRICT COU~~' CLERK 

Civil Action No. 09-0488 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter is before the Court upon consideration of plaintiffs application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and her pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint 

will be dismissed. 

Plaintiff alleges that she is illegally incarcerated. See CompI. at 4. In this civil rights 

action, she demands monetary damages of "[$] 1,000,000 for each year of illegal incarceration," 

as well as "total exoneration and exspangement [sic] of records." Id. Plaintiff may be awarded 

damages only if she first establishes that her conviction has been invalidated by "revers [ al] on 

direct appeal, expunge[ment] by executive order, declar[ation of invalidity] by a state tribunal 

authorized to make such determination, or ... a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas 

corpus." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,486-87 (1994); accord White v. Bowie, 194 F.3d 175 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (table). Plaintiff does not satisfied the prerequisite and therefore fails to state a 

claim. For these reasons, the Court will dismiss the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. 

United 

~~~ States District Judge
#### § 490.303 Applicability.

The performance measures in this subpart are applicable to the mainline highways on the Interstate System and on the non-Interstate NHS.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001102203
<NAME>                        TF Creations Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Oct-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Nov-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jul-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       550
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (5)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,605
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,605)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,605)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
### §2511. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 95–625, title X, §1012, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3543, related to recordkeeping, audit and examination, and access to books and records. See section 200509 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
Program

THIRTY- FOURTH ANNUAL

SEC Government-Business

Small Business

Capital Formation

November 19, 2015

Washington, DC

ON
EXHIBIT 32.2


                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 Golden  Enterprises,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Patty
Townsend, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
to the best of 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
Company.


Dated:  August 26, 2004



/S/ PATTY TOWNSEND
------------------------------------------
Patty Townsend
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golden Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.



                                       79
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 7319

TIMOTHY MCNEAL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. J. HUTCHINSON, Acting Warden; C. NEVILS; MR. GLENN; MS. LANHAM; MS. NECOMB; MR. TAYLOR; MS. JOHNSON; MS. V. MARTIN , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 2:21

- cv - 03431

- JFA )

Submitted : March 21, 2024 Decided: April 1, 2024

Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy McNeal , Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Jennifer L. Mallory , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7319 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Timothy McNeal appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, and dismissing his complaint, which raised Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment claims against several prison employees u nder Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s order. See McNeal v. Hutchinson , No. 2:21

- cv - 03431

- JFA (D.S.C . Nov. 2, 2022). We further deny McNeal’s motion for default. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7319 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Six Steps for Properly Cleaning and Disinfecting Your School

Protect Your School Against COVID-19 

Properly cleaning and disinfecting surfaces and objects can help safely and effectively 

reduce the spread of disease in your school or facility. 

✓ Always wear gloves and other personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriate

for the chemicals being used. The PPE may include eye protection.

✓ Cleaning and disinfection products should not be used by or near students.

✓ Make sure that there is adequate ventilation (air flow) when using chemical

products to prevent yourself or others from inhaling toxic vapors.

CS 319611-C 09/11/2020

cdc.gov/coronavirus

Step 1: 

Scan the code 

with your smart 

phone to see 

EPA’s list of 

approved 

disinfectants.

Step 3: 

Clean surfaces 

and determine 

how areas will 

be disinfected.

Step 5: 

Throw away 

gloves after 

cleaning and 

disinfection. 

Wash your hands 

with soap and 

water for at least 

20 seconds.

Step 2: 

Follow the 

directions 

on the label 

carefully. 

Step 4: 

Follow the 

contact time 

shown on 

the label.

Step 6: 

Store 

chemicals in 

a secure 

location away 

from 

students’ 

reach and 

sight.
§ 750.703 Definitions. The terms as used in this subpart are defined as follows: ( a ) *Commercial and industrial zones* are those districts established by the zoning authorities as being most appropriate for commerce, industry, or trade, regardless of how labeled. They are commonly categorized as commercial, industrial, business, manufacturing, highway service or highway business (when these latter are intended for highway-oriented business), retail, trade, warehouse, and similar classifications.
( b ) *Erect* means to construct, build, raise, assemble, place, affix, attach, create, paint, draw, or in any other way bring into being or establish.
( c ) *Federal-aid Primary Highway* means any highway on the system designated pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 103(b).
( d ) *Interstate Highway* means any highway on the system defined in and designated, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 103(e).
( e ) *Illegal sign* means one which was erected or maintained in violation of State law or local law or ordinance.
( f ) *Lease* means an agreement, license, permit, or easement, oral or in writing, by which possession or use of land or interests therein is given for a specified purpose, and which is a valid contract under the laws of a State.
( g ) *Maintain* means to allow to exist.
( h ) *Main-traveled way* means the traveled way of a highway on which through traffic is carried. In the case of a divided highway, the traveled way of each of the separate roadways for traffic in opposite directions is a main-traveled way. It does not include such facilities as frontage roads, turning roadways, or parking areas.
( i ) *Sign, display or device,* hereinafter referred to as “sign,” means an outdoor advertising sign, light, display, device, figure, painting, drawing, message, placard, poster, billboard, or other thing which is designed, intended, or used to advertise or inform, any part of the advertising or informative contents of which is visible from any place on the main-traveled way of the Interstate or Primary Systems, whether the same be permanent or portable installation.
( j ) *State law* means a State constitutional provision or statute, or an ordinance, rule or regulation, enacted or adopted by a State.
( k ) *Unzoned area* means an area where there is no zoning in effect. It does not include areas which have a rural zoning classification or land uses established by zoning variances or special exceptions.
( l ) *Unzoned commercial or industrial areas* are unzoned areas actually used for commercial or industrial purposes as defined in the agreements made between the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation (Secretary), and each State pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 131(d).
( m ) *Urban area* is as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a).
( n ) *Visible* means capable of being seen, wehter or not readable, without visual aid by a person of normal visual acuity.