alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2

MEDICINOVA, INC.

Certification of the Principal Accounting Officer Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for the Period Ended June 30, 2006

I, Shintaro Asako, Vice President, Accounting and Administration of MediciNova, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 of MediciNova, 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;

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 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 my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b) [omitted pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8392];

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant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

d) 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 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.



Date:    August 9, 2006By:

/s/    SHINTARO ASAKOShintaro Asako Vice President, Accounting and Administration (Principal Accounting
Officer)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2422

To authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to guarantee 

community development loans to the insular areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2003

Ms. BORDALLO (for herself, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, and Mrs. CHRISTENSEN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to guarantee community development loans to the 

insular areas.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Insular Areas Commu5 nity Development Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DE7 VELOPMENT ACT OF 1974. 

8 Section 108 of the Housing and Community Develop9 ment Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5308) is amended—
2

•HR 2422 IH 

1 (1) in the fourth sentence of subsection (a), by 

2 inserting ‘‘on the basis that the eligible public entity 

3 is eligible for grants under this title only pursuant 

4 to section 107(b)(1) or’’ after ‘‘section’’ ; and 

5 (2) in subsection (o), by adding after the period 

6 at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘Such term 

7 includes Guam, the Virgin Islands, American 

8 Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern 

9 Mariana Islands, and general purpose political sub10 divisions thereof.’’. 

11 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

12 Not later than the expiration of the 120-day period 

13 beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

14 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall issue 

15 and implement regulations to carry out the amendments 

16 made by this Act and to provide for the guarantee, under 

17 section 108 of the Housing and Community Development 

18 Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5308), of notes or other obliga19 tions issued by eligible public entities specified in the sec20 ond sentence of subsection (o) of such section 108 (as 

21 added by the amendment made by section 2(2) of this 

22 Act).

Æ
### Part B—Public Water Systems
### Division I—American Conservation and Youth Service Corps

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Subtitle I of title I of Pub. L. 101–610, comprising this division, was formerly classified to part C (§12541 et seq.) of this subchapter prior to the general amendment by Pub. L. 103–82, §101(a).
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 340 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to remove the exclusion 

from medical assistance under the Medicaid Program of items and services for patients in an institution for mental diseases. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 19, 2011 

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to remove 

the exclusion from medical assistance under the Medicaid 

Program of items and services for patients in an institution for mental diseases. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 340 IH

1 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF MEDICAID EXCLUSION FROM 

2 MEDICAL ASSISTANCE OF ITEMS AND SERV3 ICES FURNISHED TO PATIENTS IN AN INSTI4 TUTION FOR MENTAL DISEASES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section 

6 1905(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) 

7 is amended, in the matter following paragraph (29)— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘such term does not include— 

9 ’’ and ‘‘(A) any’’ and inserting ‘‘such term does not 

10 include any’’; 

11 (2) by striking ‘‘; or’’ and inserting a period; 

12 and 

13 (3) by striking subparagraph (B). 

14 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO PERMIT MED15 ICAL ASSISTANCE FOR IMD PATIENTS UNDER 65 YEARS

16 OF AGE.—The following provisions of such Act are each 

17 amended by striking ‘‘65 years of age or older’’ each place 

18 it appears: 

19 (1) Paragraphs (20) and (21) of section 

20 1902(a) (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)). 

21 (2) Section 1905(a)(14) (42 U.S.C. 

22 1396d(a)(14)). 

23 (3) Section 1919(d)(7)(B)(i)(I) (42 U.S.C. 

24 1396r(d)(7)(B)(i)(I)). 

25 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

26 this section shall take effect on October 1, 2011, and shall 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 340 IH

1 apply to items and services furnished on or after such 

2 date. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
No: 14-027 April 14, 2014

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Proposes to Amend the Licensing, Inspection and Annual Fees Rule

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeks public comments on proposed changes to its 

regulations for the licensing, inspection, and annual fees it charges applicants and licensees for fiscal 

year (FY) 2014. The proposed fee rule, published today in the Federal Register, includes fees required 

by law to recover approximately 90 percent of the agency’s budget authority. 

For the FY 2014 proposed fee rule, the NRC’s estimated required fee recovery amount is 

approximately $930.7 million, an increase of 7.7 percent from FY 2013. Approximately 35 percent of 

the fees would recover the cost of specific services to identifiable applicants and licensees under 10 

CFR Part 170. The remaining 65 percent would be billed as annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171. By 

law, the NRC is required to collect all fees by September 30, 2014.

The proposed rule includes several changes. First, the NRC is proposing to raise the current 

hourly rate from $272 to $279 for FY 2014, an increase of 2.7 percent from FY 2013. Second, the NRC 

would revise the flat rate license application fees in 10 CFR 170.21 and 170.31 to reflect the new 

hourly rate. Finally, the FY 2014 proposed annual fees would increase for operating reactors, research 

and test reactors, materials users, and uranium recovery facilities while annual fees would decrease for 

others, including spent fuel storage facilities and fuel facilities. The increases reflected in the proposed 

fee rule are the result of increased budgetary resources provided by Congress for FY 2014 compared to 

FY 2013.

Comments on the proposed rule are due by May 14, and may be submitted through the federal 

rulemaking website at www.regulations.gov, using Docket ID NRC-2013-0276, or by e-mail to 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. They may also be mailed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
#### Samuel Greenberg, Respondent, v. Colonial Studios et al., Defendants, and Ian Woodner et al., Appellants.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 555.]
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3370 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3370

To provide that the United States Postal Service may not close any post 
    office that does not have another post office within 8 miles as 
measured by public roads with regular year-round access, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 4, 2011

 Mr. Crawford introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that the United States Postal Service may not close any post 
    office that does not have another post office within 8 miles as 
measured by public roads with regular year-round access, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Our Rural Post Offices 
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CLOSING OF POST OFFICES.

    Section 404(d) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
        subsection, in making a determination under subsection (a)(3) 
        as to the necessity for the closing or consolidation of a post 
        office, the Postal Service may not close any post office that 
        does not have another post office within 8 miles as measured by 
        public roads with regular year-round access.''.
                                 <all>
```
### §5104B. Higher-level review by the agency of original jurisdiction

(a) In General.—(1) A claimant may request a review of the decision of the agency of original jurisdiction by a higher-level adjudicator within the agency of original jurisdiction.

(2) The Secretary shall approve each request for review under paragraph (1).

(b) Time and Manner of Request.—(1) A request for higher-level review by the agency of original jurisdiction shall be—

(A) in writing in such form as the Secretary may prescribe; and

(B) made within one year of the notice of the agency of original jurisdiction's decision.

(2) Such request may specifically indicate whether such review is requested by a higher-level adjudicator at the same office within the agency of original jurisdiction or by an adjudicator at a different office of the agency of original jurisdiction. The Secretary shall not deny such request for review by an adjudicator at a different office of the agency of original jurisdiction without good cause.

(c) Decision.—Notice of a higher-level review decision under this section shall be provided to the claimant (and any representative of such claimant) and shall include a general statement—

(1) reflecting whether evidence was not considered pursuant to subsection (d); and

(2) noting the options available to the claimant to have the evidence described in paragraph (1), if any, considered by the Department.

(d) Evidentiary Record for Review.—The evidentiary record before the higher-level adjudicator shall be limited to the evidence of record in the agency of original jurisdiction decision being reviewed.

(e) De Novo Review.—A review of the decision of the agency of original jurisdiction by a higher-level adjudicator within the agency of original jurisdiction shall be de novo.

(Added Pub. L. 115–55, §2(g)(1), Aug. 23, 2017, 131 Stat. 1107; amended Pub. L. 117–168, title VIII, §807(a)(3), Aug. 10, 2022, 136 Stat. 1806.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 117–168 substituted "to the claimant (and any representative of such claimant)" for "in writing" in introductory provisions.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to all claims for which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs provides notice of a decision under section 5104 of this title on or after the later of 540 days after Aug. 23, 2017, or 30 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to Congress a certification of certain capabilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs to carry out the new appeals system established by Pub. L. 115–55 and to address appeals of decisions on legacy claims, with provision for early applicability of the new appeals system to certain claims, see section 2(x) of Pub. L. 115–55, set out as an Effective Date of 2017 Amendment note under section 101 of this title, and bracketed note thereunder.

#### Rule of Construction

Amendment by Pub. L. 117–168 not to be construed to apply section 5104(a) of this title to decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals under chapter 71 of this title, see section 807(b) of Pub. L. 117–168, set out as a note under section 5100 of this title.
### SUBCHAPTER II–C—CHILD CARE SAFETY AND HEALTH GRANTS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This subchapter was enacted as part of title XIV of div. A of the Children's Health Act of 2000, and not as part of chapter 8 of subtitle A of title VI of Pub. L. 97–35 which comprises this chapter.
### §14510. Drug abuse mitigation initiative

(a) In General.—The Appalachian Regional Commission may provide technical assistance to, make grants to, enter into contracts with, or otherwise provide amounts to individuals or entities in the Appalachian region for projects and activities to address drug abuse, including opioid abuse, in the region, including projects and activities—

(1) to facilitate the sharing of best practices among States, counties, and other experts in the region with respect to reducing such abuse;

(2) to initiate or expand programs designed to eliminate or reduce the harm to the workforce and economic growth of the region that results from such abuse;

(3) to attract and retain relevant health care services, businesses, and workers; and

(4) to develop relevant infrastructure, including broadband infrastructure that supports the use of telemedicine.

(b) Limitation on Available Amounts.—Of the cost of any activity eligible for a grant under this section—

(1) not more than 50 percent may be provided from amounts appropriated to carry out this section; and

(2) notwithstanding paragraph (1)—

(A) in the case of a project to be carried out in a county for which a distressed county designation is in effect under section 14526, not more than 80 percent may be provided from amounts appropriated to carry out this section; and

(B) in the case of a project to be carried out in a county for which an at-risk designation is in effect under section 14526, not more than 70 percent may be provided from amounts appropriated to carry out this section.

(c) Sources of Assistance.—Subject to subsection (b), a grant provided under this section may be provided from amounts made available to carry out this section in combination with amounts made available—

(1) under any other Federal program (subject to the availability of subsequent appropriations); or

(2) from any other source.

(d) Federal Share.—Notwithstanding any provision of law limiting the Federal share under any other Federal program, amounts made available to carry out this section may be used to increase that Federal share, as the Appalachian Regional Commission determines to be appropriate.

(Added Pub. L. 115–271, title VIII, §8062(a), Oct. 24, 2018, 132 Stat. 4094.)
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 02 09 -C R

______________________________ FEL I PE RUBI O GASPAR, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 336th J udicial District Court

Fa nnin County , Texas Trial Court No. 22481

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Fe lipe Rubio Gaspar a

ppeals. We have rec eived a motion from counsel askingus to ex tend the tim e fo r f

ili nghis no tic e of

a pp e a l. H e state s th a t G a sp ar w as con vic te d Jun e 12 , 2 00 8, that a motion for n ew tria l and ar rest of judg ment was filed, a nd that appellate counsel wa s appointed. Couns e l st a te s th a t he a sk e d th e dis tr ic t c le rk wh e the r a

no tic e of a pp e a l ha d be e n f

ile d a nd wa s to ld that i t h ad b ee n . Howeve r, on Oc tober 15, 2008, c ounsel discover ed that no notice of appea l had been f iled, and he f

iled a notice of

appea l October

16, 2008. Wit h conviction and se ntencingoccur ring J une 12, 2008, and w ith a m o t i o n for ne w trial being timely

filed, the notice of appe al was due to be filed no more than ninety day s later, on September 10, 2008. The rule a lso provides a fif teen- day g rac e per iod, which expired September 25, 2008. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2. The information befor e thi s Court ref lects t hat no notice of a

ppeal or motion to ex tend time was filed until over twenty day s afte r the e x piration of the g rac e per iod. Our jurisdiction over an appea l is circumscribe d by statute and rule , and we are not permitted to e ng a g e in a c tio ns that will e nla rg e that jur isd ic tio n. With ou t a time ly fi le d noti c e of a pp e a l, t his Court is without jurisdiction. Ro da rtev . S tate , 8 60 S.W. 2d

10 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); see Slaton
v . S tat e , 981 S.W .2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Furthe r, cour ts of appea ls may not employ Rule 2 of the Te x as Rules of Appe llate P roce dure to suspend a ppellate time limits and thus ex pand our jurisdiction. Ga rza v . S

tate , 8 96 S.W. 2d

19 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 95 ); see T EX . R. A PP . P. 2.We a re relying on counsel' s statements conc erningthe timing of the events g iving r ise to the 1 no tic e of a pp e a l. T he re lie f s ou g ht m us t be g ra nte d b y the Te xas C ourt

of Cr imi na l App e a ls. 3 Th e re fo re , b a se d o n th e inf or matio n b e fo re us , w e mus t c on c lud e the no ti ce of appea l is
u n t i m e l y. 1 We dismi ss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: October 22, 2008 Date D ecide d: October 23, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
#### § 1115.9 [Reserved]
### SUBCHAPTER II—UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Louis S. Croce, Appellant, against Ford Motor Company, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Third Department,

July 2, 1953.

*291
      *Walter A. Kirkpatrick, J. Harry Tiernan, Jr.,*and *Joseph W. Kirkpatrick*for appellant.

*Benedict T. Mangano*for Ford Motor Company, respondent.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General,*for Workmen’s Compensation Board, respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal by claimant from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board for reduced earnings due to an industrial accident.

Claimant was employed as a wet sander by the Ford Motor Company at Buffalo, New York. He became totally disabled as the result of an occupational disease from July 19, 1950, to July 31, 1950, and thereafter he was partially disabled. During the period of his partial disability from July 31, 1950, to April 9, 1951, he worked for the same company at earnings which were generally less than Ms former average weekly wage. However the plant at Buffalo was not in operation for one or two days in each of some eight weeks during that period because of a strike in Detroit wMch stopped production in the Buffalo plant. Obviously these stoppages had nothing to do with claimant’s partial disability.

In computing reduced earning rates the fact that the Buffalo plant was closed on certain days was taken into consideration by the board. Claimant was charged with wages he would have received if the plant had not been closed during those days. A daily rate of pay amounting to $12.20 was added to his earnings for each day the plant was closed.

Appellant argues that tMs method of computation was in direct violation of subdivision 5-a of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. This subdivision provides: “ The wage earmng capacity of an injured employee in cases of partial disability shall be determined by Ms actual earmngs, provided, however, that if he has no such actual earnings the board may in the interest of justice fix such wage earning capacity as shall be reasonable, but not in excess of seventy-five per centum of his former full time actual earnings, having due regard to the nature of Ms injury and his physical impairment ’ ’.

*292Manifestly this subdivision cannot be construed literally and inflexibly in all cases. The whole intent and purpose of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is to provide compensation lost or impaired by reason of industrial accidents. Reduction of earnings because of economic conditions is not an element to be considered in fixing an award *(Matter of Mikno*v. *Endicott Johnson Corp.,*278 App. Div. 598). Quite evidently the Legislature intended that the term “ actual earnings ” should be related to ordinary full time employment, whatever that may be, otherwise an employer would be charged with consequences which had nothing to do with an industrial accident.

The award should be affirmed.

Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ., concur.

Decision and award affirmed, without costs.