alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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
  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;
andb)
    
    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: May 11, 2009
    By:
    /s/
Christopher l. nagelChristopher L. Nagel,Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.2
                                                             ------------

                         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 Community Financial Shares,
   Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,
   2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
   hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald H. Fischer, Chief Executive Officer &
   Chief 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


   /s/ Donald H. Fischer, CFO
   --------------------------


   Donald H. Fischer
   Chief Financial Officer
   March  31, 2003
Exhibit 23.2


Consent of Independent Petroleum Engineers and Geologists


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-186497) on Form S-3 and the registration statements (No. 333‐108162, 333‐118976, 333‐118977, 333‐124964, 333‐143203, 333‐143204, 333‐158922, 333‐177825 and 333-191878) on Form S‐8 of Noble Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) of the reference to Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. and the inclusion of our report dated January 22, 2015 in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, of the Company and its subsidiaries, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:/s/ Danny D. Simmons, P.E.Danny D. Simmons, P.E.President and Chief Operating OfficerHouston, TexasFebruary 19, 2015
#### Marlene FEARING, Appellant, M.A. Fearing Companies, Inc.; M.A. Fearing, Inc.; Progressive Real Estate, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LAKE ST. CROIX BEACH; Mary Parr; Robert ‘Bob’ Swenson; Linda O’Donnell, personally and as employees/agents of City of Lake St. Croix, Appellees.

No. 06-2300.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 5, 2007.

Filed: Nov. 8, 2007.

Marlene Fearing, Oro Valley, AZ, pro se.

Jon Kermit Iverson, Susan Marie Tindal, Iverson & Reuvers, Bloomington, MN, Jon Erik Kingstad, Oakdale, MN, for Appellees.

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Marlene Fearing appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of a complaint wherein Fearing and three business entities asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The business entities were dismissed from this appeal after they failed to respond to a show-cause order related to the need for appellate counsel. Thus, the only issue that remains is the dismissal without prejudice of Fearing’s state-law claims, over which the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, *see*28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and we find no abuse of discretion, *see Gibson v. Weber,*433 F.3d 642, 647 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
#### § 1230.602 Administrator, AMS.

The term *Administrator, AMS,* means the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, or any officer or employee of the Department to whom there has heretofore been delegated or may hereafter be delegated the authority to act in the Administrator's stead.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-51122, Form S-8 No. 333-84672, Form S-8 No. 333-45410 and Form
S-8 No. 333-11537) of Andrx Corporation of our report dated March 4, 2003
(except with respect to the matters discussed in Notes 16 and 20, as to which
the date is March 24, 2003) with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Andrx Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2002.


                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 26, 2003
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

December 12, 2011

Memorandum

Subject: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Compliance Programs

From: Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, Air Division, Planning Office (AIR-2)

To: South Coast 8-hour Ozone Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0622

Jeanhee Hong, EPA Region 9, Office of Regional Counsel and I spoke with the following SCAQMD (or 

District) staff on December 8, 2011 about their compliance and inspection programs: Jill Whynot, Cher 

Snyder, Ed Pupka, and Danny Luong.

SCAQMD staff indicated that the District has an active compliance and inspection program. The Title V 

program, which covers stationary sources which emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year of 

VOC or NOx, are subject to SCAQMD regulation XXX, which requires facilities to regularly report 

compliance information to the District. The RECLAIM program, which generally applies to sources that 

emit 4 tpy or greater of NOx or SOx in the year 1990 or subsequent years, also contains stringent 

compliance monitoring and reporting requirements. District staff noted that overall emissions from 

sources subject to the RECLAIM program compared to overall allocations are usually at least 10% 

below the allocation. 

District staff also indicated they collect statistics regarding the number of facility inspections and notices 

of violation (NOVs). They also provide annual data to the California Air Resources Board on NOVs on 

a rule by rule basis. In addition, when they revisit previous baseline inventories, they find that the 

District tends to overpredict emissions.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsConceptual design of a synchronous Mars telecommunications satelliteFuture missions to Mars will require a communications system to link activities on the Martian surface with each other and with mission controllers on Earth. A conceptual design is presented for an aerosynchronous communications satellite to provide these links. The satellite provides the capability for voice, data/command, and video transmissions. The mission scenario assumed for the design is described, and a description of a single aerosynchronous satellite is explained. A viable spacecraft design is then presented. Communication band selection and channel allocation are discussed. The communications system conceptual design is presented along with the trades used in sizing each of the required antennas. Also, the analyses used to develop the supporting subsystem designs are described as is the communications impact on each subsystem design.Document ID19900001498Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsBadi, Deborah M.*(Bionetics Corp. Hampton, VA., United States)*Farmer, Jeffrey T.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Garn, Paul A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Martin, Gary L.*(George Washington Univ. Hampton, VA., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1989Subject CategoryLunar And Planetary ExplorationReport/Patent NumberNASA-TP-2942L-16580NAS 1.60:2942Accession Number90N10814Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 326-23-30-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900001498.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Parent Guide:  A Bargain for Frances      

# Parent Guide:  A Bargain for Frances

Booklet to accompany the book A Bargain for Frances, helping parents read and discuss money topics with their children.

https://pueblo.gpo.gov/CFPBPubs/CFPBPubs.php?PubID=13237
**Exhibit 32.1
      - Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Pathogenics, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Frederic F Zotos
      Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(1)
            The
                Report
                fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
                the
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





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





/s/
        Frederic P. Zotos
 
 Frederic
        P.
        Zotos
 President, Chief Executive Officer,
 Director and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
 
  Date:  August
        14, 2007
§ 1260.312 Remittance to the Cattlemen's Board or Qualified State Beef Council. Each person responsible for the collection and remittance of assessments shall transmit assessments and a report of assessments to the qualified State beef council of the State in which such person resides or if there is no qualified State beef council in such State, then to the Cattlemen's Board as follows: ( a ) *Reports.* Each collecting person shall make reports on forms made available or approved by the Cattlemen's Board. Each collecting person shall prepare a separate report for each reporting period. Each report shall be mailed to the qualified State beef council of the State in which the collecting person resides, or its designee, or if there exists no qualified State beef council in such State, to the Cattlemen's Board. Each report shall contain the following information: ( 1 ) The number of cattle purchased, initially transferred or which, in any other manner, is subject to the collection of assessment, and the dates of such transactions;
( 2 ) The amount of assessment remitted;
( 3 ) The basis, if necessary, to show why the remittance is less than the number of head of cattle multiplied by one dollar; and
( 4 ) The date any assessment was paid.
( b ) *Reporting periods.* Each calendar month shall be a reporting period and the period shall end at the close of business on the last business day of the month.
( c ) *Remittances.* The remitting person shall remit all assessments to the Qualified State Beef Council or its designee, or, if there is no Qualified State Beef Council, to the Cattlemen's Board at an address designated by the Board, with the report required in paragraph (a) of this section not later than the 15th day of the month following the month in which the cattle were purchased or marketed. All remittances sent to a Qualified State Beef Council or the Cattlemen's Board by the remitting persons shall be by check or money order payable to the order of the Qualified State Beef Council or the Cattlemen's Board. All remittances shall be received subject to collection and payment at par.
[53 FR 5754, Feb. 26, 1988, as amended at 79 FR 46936, Aug. 12, 2014; 84 FR 20771, May 13, 2019]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*

#### § 1415.15 Payments not subject to claims.

Any cost-share, rental, or easement payment or portion thereof due any person under this part will be allowed without regard to any claim or lien in favor of any creditor, except agencies of the United States Government.
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1421.14 Obtaining peanut MALs. ( a ) Peanuts MALs to individual producers may be obtained through: ( 1 ) County offices; or
( 2 ) A designated Marketing Association or a CMA approved by CCC.
( b ) The MAL documents will not be presented for disbursement unless the peanuts pledged as collateral for the MAL are eligible as specified in § 1421.8. If the peanuts were ineligible at the time of the disbursement, the total amount disbursed under MAL, or as an LDP, plus charges and interest will be refunded promptly.
[67 FR 63511, Oct. 11, 2002, as amended at 80 FR 123, Jan. 2, 2015]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11417

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE OCHOA-CALEDO, also known as Ramiro Cerna-Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-79-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Ochoa-Caledo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 

U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1)-(2). The presentence report (PSR) recommended an 

advisory guidelines range of 24 to 30 months of imprisonment. The district 

court sentenced Ochoa-Caledo to 40 months of imprisonment and three years 

of supervised release. On appeal, Ochoa-Caledo challenges the procedural 

reasonableness of his sentence. In evaluating whether a district court 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 7, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11417 Document: 00514146298 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2017
No. 16-11417

2

committed a procedural error in the sentencing determination, we employ a de 

novo standard of review. United States v. Garcia Mendoza, 587 F.3d 682, 688 

(5th Cir. 2009).

Ochoa-Caledo argues that the district court committed procedural error 

by misapplying the provisions of the Guidelines governing departures in 

determining that an upward departure was warranted under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, 

p.s. However, the record reflects that the district court imposed a nonguidelines sentence or upward variance based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir. 

2008). Therefore, Ochoa-Caledo’s arguments are inapposite.

He also contends that the district court committed procedural error by 

failing to adequately explain its decision to impose an upward variance. At 

sentencing, the district court listened to the arguments and statements made 

by defense counsel and Ochoa-Caledo. The district court also adopted the PSR 

and the PSR Addendum, considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and 

stated reasons in support of the upward variance. Specifically, the district 

court noted the “large number of occasions” in which Ochoa-Caledo “illegally 

entered the United States.” The district court also stated that Ochoa-Caledo 

had “quite a criminal history” and that none of his prior convictions received 

criminal history points. Even if the district court “might have said more,” the 

record makes clear that the court considered all of “the evidence and 

arguments,” and its statement of reasons for the sentence imposed was “legally 

sufficient.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 358-59 (2007).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-11417 Document: 00514146298 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/07/2017
Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated 2006 Equity Incentive Plan


EXHIBIT 4.3




Second Amendment to the

Amended and Restated 2006 Equity Incentive Plan

(Effective February 15, 2013)







Section 3(b)(i) shall be deleted and replaced with the following:




(i) Initial Grants. Effective 10 days from the date on which a non-employee director is first elected or appointed, whether elected by the shareholders of the Company or appointed by the Board to fill a Board vacancy, he or she shall receive an automatic grant of Restricted Stock (or RSUs if selected by the director with such delivery deferral as the director may select) and options with the number of shares, RSUs and options based upon Fair Market Value. Advisory Board members shall receive grants upon initial appointment to the Advisory Board or the Approval Date, if later. In lieu of Restricted Stock or RSUs, the person may elect to receive options for the entire grant.




			
	 
	


Options

	Restricted 

Stock


	Initial Grants

 

	 
	 

	Initial appointment as Chairman of the Board 

	$75,000

	$75,000


	Initial election or appointment of a non-employee director

	$40,000

	$40,000


	Initial appointment as a Director Advisor

	$15,000

	$10,000
#### § 1212.17 Person.

“Person” means any individual, group of individuals, partnership, corporation, association, cooperative, or any other legal entity.
#### Alojzy Suchomski, Respondent, v Ada G. Suchomski, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court Onondaga County, for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: The parties executed a separation agreement providing, *inter alia,*that plaintiff husband have sole and exclusive possession of the marital premises for himself and the children and that at his option when and if it is sold, the defendant shall share equally in the proceeds remaining after satisfaction of the existing mortgage. This agreement was incorporated but not merged in a subsequent uncontested divorce decree. The judgment contained an order adopting the language of the agreement reciting that the plaintiff shall have the option to sell the property at his discretion and when and if it is sold, the defendant shall share in the proceeds. When plaintiff negotiated a bona fide sale, defendant declined to execute the deed unless stated concessions were made. Plaintiff moved to punish defendant for civil contempt for her willful refusal to comply with the decree. In response, defendant asserted plaintiff’s failure to account for rental receipts and inadequate consideration for the sale. Special Term found defendant to be in contempt and it is from that order that she appeals. Contempt may not be granted unless the judgment or order violated is clear and explicit, and unless the act complained of is clearly proscribed *(Pereira v Pereira,*35 NY2d 301, 308; *Busch v Berg,*52 AD2d *10391082). The alleged contempt is the failure of the defendant to execute a deed to effect a transfer of premises. We do not find in the order of the court a mandate with sufficient clarity to warrant the contempt proceeding based on the failure to comply. Accordingly, this matter is remitted to Special Term for a plenary hearing on contempt of the existing order or application for an unequivocal order *(Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis v Pioneer Warehouse Corp.,*61 AD2d 756). (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court— contempt.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.