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


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


CERTIFICATION


I, Venugopal Rathi, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MORGAN STANLEY DIRECT LENDING FUND;


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 our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its  consolidated subsidiaries, if any,  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 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.








Dated: March 18, 2022


/s/ Venugopal RathiVenugopal RathiChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
§ 93.1 Service through the diplomatic channel. ( a ) The Director of the Office of Special Consular Services in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State (“The Managing Director for Overseas Citizen Service”), shall perform the duties of the Secretary of State under section 1608(a)(4) of title 28, United States Code.
( b ) When the clerk of the court concerned sends documents under section 1608(a)(4), of title 28, United States Code, the Managing Director for Overseas Citizen Service shall promptly ascertain if the documents include the required copies of the notice of suit and of the summons and complaint (or default judgment), and any required translations. If not, he shall promptly advise the clerk of the missing items.
( c ) Upon receiving the required copies of documents and any required translations, the Managing Director for Overseas Citizen Service shall promptly cause one copy of each such document and translation (“the documents”) to be delivered— ( 1 ) To the Embassy of the United States in the foreign state concerned, and the Embassy shall promptly deliver them to the foreign ministry or other appropriate authority of the foreign state, or
( 2 ) If the foreign state so requests or if otherwise appropriate, to the embassy of the foreign state in the District of Columbia, or
( 3 ) If paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section are unavailable, through an existing diplomatic channel, such as to the embassy of another country authorized to represent the interests of the foreign state concerned in the United States.
( d ) The documents, when delivered under paragraph (c) of this section, shall be accompanied by a diplomatic note of transmittal, requesting that the documents be forwarded to the appropriate authority of the foreign state or political subdivision upon which service is being made. The note shall state that, under United States law, questions of jurisdiction and of state immunity must be addressed to the court and not to the Department of State, and that it is advisable to consult with an attorney in the United States.
( e ) If the documents are delivered under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the Embassy of the United States shall promptly transmit by diplomatic pouch, to the Managing Director for Overseas Citizen Service, a certified copy of the diplomatic note of transmittal. If the documents are delivered under paragraph (c) (2) or (3) of this section, the Managing Director for Overseas Citizen Service shall prepare a certified copy of the diplomatic note of transmittal. In each case, the certification shall state the date and place the documents were delivered. The Managing Director for Overseas Citizen Service shall then promptly send the certified copy to the clerk of the court concerned.
(Sec. 1608(a), Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-583 (28 U.S.C. 1608(a)); sec. 4, 63 Stat. 111, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2658))
[42 FR 6367, Feb. 2, 1977, as amended at 63 FR 16687, Apr. 6, 1998]
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCHEDULING 

NO. CV-09-00430 JSW

1 n:\cxlit\li2009\100014\00630920.doc

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

DANNY CHOU, State Bar #180240

Chief of Complex and Special Litigation 

CHRISTINE VAN AKEN, State Bar #241755

Deputy City Attorney 

Fox Plaza 

1390 Market Street, 7th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94102-5408 

Telephone: (415) 554-3875 

Facsimile: (415) 554-3985 

E-Mail: christine.van.aken@sfgov.org 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 

SERGEANT R. ANDREW COX, and 

OFFICER CARLA SPAIN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSEPH MCINERNEY, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C 09-00430 JSW 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ORDER 

ENLARGING TIME AND MODIFYING 

EXPERT DISCOVERY DEADLINES 

Date Action Filed: January 21, 2009 

Trial Date: October 12, 2010 

On May 24, 2010, the defendants the City and County of San Francisco, Sergeant R. Andrew 

Cox, and Officer Carla Spain ("Defendants"), requested that this Court enlarge expert discovery 

deadlines in this case, setting them after the date for hearing on Defendants' summary judgment 

motion. 

For good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motion and sets the following 

expert discovery deadlines: 

Expert disclosures and reports due: July 16, 2010 

Rebuttal Expert disclosures and reports due: July 30, 2010 

Close of Expert discovery: August 13, 2010 

Case 3:09-cv-00430-JSW Document 39 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-00430-JSW Document37 Filed05/24/10 Page1 of 3
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCHEDULING 

NO. CV-09-00430 JSW

2 n:\cxlit\li2009\100014\00630920.doc

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated:___________________ ____________________________ 

 HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE 

 United States District Judge 

Case3:09-cv-00430-JSW Document37 Filed05/24/10 Page2 of 3

June 3, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-00430-JSW Document 39 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of MemberWorks Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James B. Duffy, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, 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:


     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and 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.



/s/ James B. Duffy
James B. Duffy
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
MemberWorks Incorporated
May 6, 2003
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Daniel F. McCarty, Respondent, v. Dahlstrom Metallic Door Co., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant was injured playing baseball in a team sponsored by his employer, the Dahlstrom Metallic Door Co. The team was a member of the Industrial League of Jamestown. An award has been made and the issue is whether the case falls within *Matter of Wilson*v. *General Motors Corp.*(298 N. Y. 468) and must be reversed; or within *Matter of Tedesco*v. *General Elec. Co.*(305 N. Y. 544) and be affirmed. We are of opinion the substantial criteria of employer-sponsored athletic activity laid down in the latter decision is in this record. The team was composed entirely of employees of the employer; the expenses of the team, consisting of the cost of uniforms, equipment and entry fee, were paid by the employer, which required that all equipment be returned to it. The name of the employer was lettered on each uniform, and jackets had similar lettering. The name of the employer was used by the team, which appeared in press announcements and in other announcements; and in a year (1958) in which there had been a strike in the plant, no team was organized. A sufficient control by the employer; and of benefit to the employer from the team, are thus demonstrated. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
Opinion issued August 8, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00182-CR

———————————

JONATHAN BLANDON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1784833

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Jonathan Blandon, was charged with the first-degree felony 

offense of aggravated sexual assault. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the 

State, appellant pleaded guilty to the reduced second-degree felony offense of sexual 

assault, with an agreed punishment recommendation of three years’ incarceration. 
2

The trial court accepted the plea agreement, found appellant guilty of the offense of 

sexual assault, and assessed punishment at three years’ incarceration. The trial court 

certified that this case is a plea-bargain case and appellant has no right of appeal. 

Appellant, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

In a plea-bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court's 

permission to appeal. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 44.02; TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that the defendant 

has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record. TEX. R. APP.

P. 25.2(d); see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Here, 

the clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that this is a pleabargain case and that appellant has no right of appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), 

(d); Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 615. Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must 

dismiss this appeal without further action. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain 

whether an appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a), 

must dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for 

the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Rivas-Molloy.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEMA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,    v.

WILLIAM KOPERWHATS, et al.,

Defendants,                                                                     /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.                                                                      /

No. C-09-1587 MMC

ORDER VACATING JUNE 4, 2010HEARING ON DEFENDANTSKOPERWHATS AND MILOSLICKSCIENTIFIC’S MOTION TO DISMISSPLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDEDCOMPLAINT 

Before the Court is defendants William Koperwhats (“Koperwhats”) and Miloslick

Scientific’s joint “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint,” filed April 27,

2010.  Plaintiffs KEMA, Inc. and RLW Analytics, Inc. have filed opposition, to which

defendants have replied. 

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for determination on the parties’ written

submissions, and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 4, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2010                                                             MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01587-MMC   Document 147   Filed 06/02/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-13T17:27:51-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Case 3:09-cv-00235-JSW Document 38 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:09-cv-00235-JSW Document37 Filed02/24/10 Page1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-00235-JSW Document 38 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 3 Case3:09-cv-00235-JSW Document37 Filed02/24/10 Page2 of 3
Case3:09-cv-00235-JSW Document37 Filed02/24/10 Page3 of 3

February 25, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-00235-JSW Document 38 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.2

                   Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

     In  connection  with the  filing  with the  United  States  Securities  and
Exchange Commission of Emergent Group Inc.'s (the "Company") Quarterly Report on
Form  10-QSB/A for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2005 (the  "Report"),the
undersigned,  the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  hereby certifies that
(i) in my capacity as an officer of the  Company,  (ii) to my actual  knowledge,
and (iii) solely for the purpose of compliance with 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, that:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of ss.13(a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

     The  above  certification  is  given as of the  date of the  Report  and is
limited to the periods covered by the Report.  The above  certification  is made
severally and not jointly.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  undersigned  have executed this  Certificate  on
December 15, 2005.


                                               By: /s/ William M. McKay
                                                   --------------------
                                                   William M. McKay
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
### §5854. Notification and reports by Chairman

The Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall notify the other members of the Commission, the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, not later than 1 day after the Chairman begins performing functions under the authority of section 3 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980, or after a member of the Commission who is delegated emergency functions under subsection (b) of that section begins performing those functions. Such notification shall include an explanation of the circumstances warranting the exercise of such authority. The Chairman shall report to the Committees, not less frequently than once each week, on the actions taken by the Chairman, or a delegated member of the Commission, under such authority, until the authority is relinquished. The Chairman shall notify the Committees not later than 1 day after such authority is relinquished. The Chairman shall submit the report required by section 3(d) of the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980 to the Committees not later than 1 day after it was submitted to the Commission. This section shall be in effect in fiscal year 2015 and each subsequent fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 113–235, div. D, title IV, §401, Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2330.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980, referred to in text, is set out as a note under section 5841 of this title.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, and also as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, and not as part of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.
### §7371. Statement of purpose

The purpose of this subchapter is to establish incentives for the use of renewable energy resources, to improve and coordinate the dissemination of information to the public with respect to renewable energy resources, to encourage the use of certain cost effective solar energy systems and conservation measures by the Federal Government, to establish a program for the promotion of local energy self-sufficiency, to broaden the existing program for accelerating the procurement and use of photovoltaic systems, and to provide further encouragement for the development of small hydroelectric power projects.

(Pub. L. 96–294, title IV, §402, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 715.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title IV of Pub. L. 96–294, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 715, known as the Renewable Energy Resources Act of 1980. For complete classification of title IV to the Code, see Short Title note set out below and Tables.

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

#### Short Title

Section 401 of title IV Pub. L. 96–294 provided that: "This title [enacting this subchapter, amending sections 8255, 8271, and 8274 to 8276 of this title and sections 2705 and 2708 of Title 16, Conservation, and enacting a provision set out as a note under section 2701 of Title 16] may be cited as the 'Renewable Energy Resources Act of 1980'."
#### § 206.144 Final payment.

The mortgagee may not file any supplemental claims to its mortgage insurance claim after six months from settlement by the Commissioner of the claim payment except where the Commissioner determines it appropriate and expressly authorizes an extension of time for supplemental claim filings.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRINCE SHOTWELL,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 09-1341 TEH (PR)

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

A recent en banc decision from the Ninth Circuit, Hayward

v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th Cir. April 22, 2010)

(en banc), addressed important issues relating to federal habeas

review of BPH decisions denying parole to California state

prisoners. As such, the Court will provide each party an

opportunity to submit a supplemental brief (not to exceed ten (10)

pages in length) explaining his views of how the Hayward en banc

decision applies to the facts presented in Petitioner’s challenge to

BPH’s decision denying him parole. 

//

//

Case 3:09-cv-01341-TEH Document 18 Filed 06/11/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

The Court sets the following schedule:

1. No later than July 2, 2010, Respondent must file and

serve any supplemental brief applying Hayward to the facts presented

in Petitioner’s case. 

2. No later than July 30, 2010, Petitioner must file and

serve any supplemental brief applying Hayward to the facts presented

in his case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 06/10/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.09\Shotwell-09-1341-hayward briefing.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-01341-TEH Document 18 Filed 06/11/10 Page 2 of 2