alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302**I, Keith R. Schroeder, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Orchids Paper Products Company (the“Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [reserved](c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  August 4, 2006 /s/ Keith R. Schroeder   Keith R. Schroeder   Chief Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 22178, May 14, 2018.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 83 FR 61310, Nov. 29, 2018

3. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 85 FR 65504, Oct. 15, 2020.

4. Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 87 FR 44266, July 26, 2022.

#### § 2.87 Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration.

Pursuant to § 2.24(a), and subject to reservations in § 2.24(b), the following delegation of authority is made by the Assistant Secretary for Administration to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, to be exercised only during the absence or unavailability of the Assistant Secretary: Perform all the duties and exercise all the powers which are now or which may hereafter be delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Administration: Provided, that this authority shall be exercised first by a respective non-career Deputy Assistant Secretary in the order in which he or she has taken office as Deputy Assistant Secretary, and second by a career Deputy Assistant Secretary.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JOEL BARCELONA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5356/MCR/EMT

H. BURKES, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________/

ORDER

The Chief Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on October 

8, 2021 (ECF No. 19). The Court furnished the parties a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded them an opportunity to file objections pursuant to 

Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of all objections. See ECF No. 20.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections 

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

19) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-05356-MCR-EMT Document 21 Filed 11/04/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cv5356/MCR/EMT

2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to for 

failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

order and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of November 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05356-MCR-EMT Document 21 Filed 11/04/21 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0242

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DYLAN MIKKEL OHL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

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

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 18, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 9 2022

02/09/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0242
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2222 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2222

 To prohibit performance awards in the Senior Executive Service during 
                         sequestration periods.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 3, 2013

Mr. Fitzpatrick (for himself and Mr. Meadows) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit performance awards in the Senior Executive Service during 
                         sequestration periods.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PERFORMANCE AWARDS IN THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE 
              SERVICE.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section--
            (1) the terms ``agency'' and ``career appointee'' have the 
        meanings given such terms in section 5381 of title 5, United 
        States Code; and
            (2) the term ``sequestration period'' means a period 
        beginning on the date on which a sequestration order is issued 
        under section 251 or 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
        Deficit Control Act (2 U.S.C. 901 and 901a) and ending on the 
        last day of the fiscal year to which the sequestration order 
        applies.
    (b) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an 
agency may not pay a performance award under section 5384 of title 5, 
United States Code, to a career appointee--
            (1) during a sequestration period; or
            (2) that relates to any period of service performed during 
        a fiscal year during which a sequestration order is issued 
        under section 251 or 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
        Deficit Control Act (2 U.S.C. 901 and 901a).
                                 <all>
```
#### § 25.402 Periodic performance reviews.

USDA will regularly evaluate the progress in implementing the strategic plan in each designated Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community on the basis of performance reviews to be conducted on site and using other information submitted. USDA may also commission evaluations of the Empowerment Zone program as a whole by an impartial third party. Evidence of continual involvement of all segments of the community, including low income and disadvantaged residents, must be evidenced in the implementation of the strategic plan.
Exhibit
10.54


 


Amendment to Distribution & Supply Agreement of November 20th,
2000 between Vivus International, Ltd. and Paladin Labs Inc.


 


This
Amendment, dated as of October 11th, 2004, is executed by and
between Paladin Labs, Inc., 6111 Royalmount Avenue, Montreal, Quebec H4P 2T4,
Canada (“Paladin”) and Vivus International, Ltd., Clarendon House, Church
Street, Hamilton, Bermuda (“Vivus”).


 


WHEREAS,
the parties decided to amend the Agreement as per Section 20.7;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the parties express their mutual intentions as follows:


 


License Fees


Delete
Section 3.1, Section 9.2 and Section 9.3 and replace with - “Paladin
shall pay Vivus a license fee of one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars
United States Dollars ($125,000) on November 1, 2004. Paladin shall also
pay VIVUS an additional one hundred and twenty-five thousand United States
dollars ($125,000) on November 1, 2006 provided that Net Sales of Muse are
above three hundred and seventy-five thousand United States dollars ($375,000)
in the previous twelve month period.


 


Term and Termination


Delete
in Section 17.1 “tenth (10th)” and replace with “fourteenth (14th)”.


 


* * * * *


 


This
Amendment is executed in two original copies, one for each party.


 


* * * * *


 


	
  October 11,
  2004

  	
  October
  l1, 2004

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  For
  Paladin Labs Inc.

  	
  for
  Vivus International, Ltd.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/
  [ILLEGIBLE]

  	
   

  	
  /s/
  TERRY NIDA
Regulatory Evaluation

Complete when issuing a supplemental NPRM, revision, or supersedure.

 No Change from existing AD action

Docket No. FAA-2012-0108 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-049-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 0 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that 

was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 
Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Gary A. Reys, the Chief Executive Officer of CellCyte Genetics Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CellCyte Genetics Corporation, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of CellCyte Genetics Corporation.

Date:     August 19, 2008.

| | /s/ "Gary A. Reys"                  
| | ------------------------------------
| | Gary A. Reys
Chief Executive Officer

__________
Exhibit 10.3


 


Amendment No. 2


 


To


 


Lease Agreement


 


AMENDMENT dated this 15th
day of September, 2000 to the Lease Agreement, dated September 23, 1993
(the “Lease”) between Gerstell Development Limited Partnership and WPGH, Inc.,
as changed to Sinclair Media I, Inc.


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS, Lessor and
Lessee, Gerstell Development Limited Partnership and WPGH, Inc. as changed to
Sinclair Media I, Inc., entered into that certain Lease Agreement dated September 23,
1993, which Lease Agreement was amended on June 8, 2000, said Lease
Agreement as so amended being hereinafter referred to as “the Lease”, and


 


WHEREAS, Lessor and
Lessee desire to correct certain provisions of the Lease as amended:


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual
covenants herein contained, in accordance with Section 1 of the lease, the
parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.               The
parties acknowledge that the Lease is currently in full force and effect.


 


2.               The
present term will begin on October 1, 2000.


 


3.               The
present term will expire on October 1, 2007.


 


4.               The
anniversary date of the lease is October 1.


 


5.               Each
of the other terms of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect and shall
be unaffected by this Amendment No. 2.


 





















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 2 as of the date first above
written.


 


	
   

  	
  Gerstell-Development
  Limited Partnership

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ J. Duncan
  Smith

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  
	
   

  	
  Name: J. Duncan
  Smith

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Secretary

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Sinclair Media
  I, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ Robin Smith

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: Robin Smith

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
  Title: VP of
  Finance
#### § 29.1046 Oxidized (O).

A term applied to tobacco that has deteriorated and turned black during the curing process. Any leaf of which 10 percent or more of its surface has been blackened during the curing process may be described as oxidized. Oxidized tobacco is also known as barn scald or barn rot. (See Rules 23 and 25.)

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, November 18, 2010 at 3 p.m.

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.

Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session, and determined that no earlier notice thereof was possible.

The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 18, 2010 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;

Consideration of amicus participation; and other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items.

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

 November 10, 2010.

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-28924 Filed 11-12-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Opinion issued February 25, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00970-CV

———————————

IN RE A.R.R., A.M.R., AND A.R.R., Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, A.R.R., A.M.R., and A.R.R., have filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus requesting this Court to compel the trial court to strike and dismiss an 

original petition to modify conservatorship filed by real parties in interest, O.M. and 

L.M.1 To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that the trial court 

1 The underlying proceeding is In the Interest of A.R.R., A.M.R., and A.R.R., Cause 

No. 2017-00427J, currently pending in the 314th District Court of Harris County, 

the Honorable Eric Andell presiding.
2

clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. 

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). Relators have not shown that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal. 

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (holding that 

“an appellate remedy is not inadequate merely because it may involve more expense 

or delay than obtaining an extraordinary writ.”). 

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a), (d). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd, Hightower.
EXHIBIT 23

                       Consent of Independent Accountants


     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Prospectus
constituting  part of the  Registration  Statement on Form S-3 (No.  333-10847),
Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-87064) and Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (No. 33-76864) of ARC Capital (formerly Applied Laser Systems, Inc.) of
our report dated March 18, 1997  appearing on page F-2 of this Annual  Report on
Form 10-K.






PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Portland, Oregon
March 21, 1997
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:99cr2LAC

WARREN PHILLIPS

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on December 5, 2006

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION TO REOPEN FEDERAL SENTENCE 

Filed byDEFENDANT PRO SE on 11/22/2006 Doc.# 122

RESPONSES:

GOVERNMENT on 12/15/2006 Doc.# 123

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 19th day of

December, 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:99-cr-00002-LC-MD Document 124 Filed 12/19/06 Page 1 of 1
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:97cr76LAC

MICHAEL WALCOTT

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on March 5, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO

TITLE 18 U.S.C. SECTION 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on3/3/08 Doc.# 122 

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 11

th day of

April, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) The reduced guideline range still becomes 240 months, the mandatory minimum,

as required by statute. 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:97-cr-00076-LC-MD Document 125 Filed 04/11/08 Page 1 of 1
_______________________________________ __ Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 21, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128040 & (50) Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 128040 COA: 249891 Wayne CC: 03-001951-01 DEMOND ANTHONY HARRIS, 03-001952-02 Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e December 28, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to

remand is DENIED.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would remand this cas e for a hearing pursuant to People v Ginther , 390 Mich 436 (1973).

t0914 I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, 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.

September 21, 2005

Clerk
#### § 29.1081 Variegated red or scorched (KR).

A red discoloration which usually results from excessive heat in the curing process. Any leaf of which 20 percent or more of its surface has been reddened in the curing process may be described as variegated red or scorched. (See Rule 16.)

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
37

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

STEPHAN P. MICKLE

United States District Judge

Case 4:01-cv-00238-SPM-AK Document 119 Filed 06/27/06 Page 37 of 51
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg
ggg