alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**
I, Donald J. Hotz, Chief Financial Officer of Home ProductsInternational, Inc., certify that:
          1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) of Home Products International, Inc.;
          2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
          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 officer 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) 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
          c) 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; and
          5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Date:September 16, 2005 By: /s/ Donald J. Hotz           Donald J. Hotz    Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1460 Stereopsis measuring instrument. ( a ) *Identification.* A stereopsis measuring instrument is a device intended to measure depth perception by illumination of objects placed on different planes.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 35605, Sept. 14, 1988; 66 FR 38811, July 25, 2001]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         318,000
<SECURITIES>                                   275,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,498,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    95,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,242,000
<PP&E>                                         879,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 506,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,344,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,856,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,070,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,344,000
<SALES>                                     10,782,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,782,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,998,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,373,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                410,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   184,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            226,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   226,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014129EN.01003101.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/31

---

Action brought on 13 February 2014 — Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR)

(Case T-97/14)

(2014/C 129/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 383 445

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 1038/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 1045/2012-1

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.

---
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.5300 Ear, nose, and throat examination and treatment unit. ( a ) *Identification.* An ear, nose, and throat examination and treatment unit is an AC-powered device intended to support a patient during an otologic examination while providing specialized features for examination and treatment. The unit consists of a patient chair and table, drawers for equipment, suction and blowing apparatus, and receptacles for connection of specialized lights and examining instruments.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 874.9.
[55 FR 48440, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 65 FR 2316, Jan. 14, 2000]
IB 

Union Calendar No. 550 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7686 

[Report No. 118–653] 

To amend the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act 

to clarify the definition of foreign country for purposes of malign foreign 

talent recruitment restriction, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2024 

Mr. MIKE GARCIA of California (for himself and Ms. STEVENS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on March 15, 2024] 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7686 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Research and Development, Competition, and 

Innovation Act to clarify the definition of foreign country 

for purposes of malign foreign talent recruitment restriction, and for other purposes. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 7686 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF FOREIGN 

4 COUNTRY FOR PURPOSES OF MALIGN FOR5 EIGN TALENT RECRUITMENT RESTRICTION. 

6 Paragraph (4) of section 10638 of title VI of division 

7 B of the Research and Development, Competition, and In8 novation Act is amended— 

9 (1) by inserting ‘‘of concern’’ after ‘‘foreign coun10 try’’ each place such term appears; 

11 (2) by striking ‘‘means—’’ and all that follows 

12 through ‘‘any program, position, or activity’’ and in13 serting ‘‘means any program, position, or activity’’; 

14 (3) by striking subparagraph (B); 

15 (4) by redesignating clauses (i) through (ix) as 

16 subparagraphs (A) through (I), respectively, and mov17 ing such subparagraphs, as so redesignated, two ems 

18 to the left; 

19 (5) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), as 

20 so redesignated, by striking ‘‘directly provided’’ and 

21 inserting ‘‘whether directly or indirectly provided’’; 

22 and 

23 (6) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated, by 

24 striking ‘‘; and’’ and inserting a period. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Union Calendar No. 550 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7686 

[Report No. 118–653] 

A BILL 

To amend the Research and Development, Competiposes. talent recruitment restriction, and for other pur- of foreign country for purposes of malign foreign tion, and Innovation Act to clarify the definition 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2024 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Order filed April 21, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00102-CV

____________

CHARLIE JONES, Appellant

V.

SOUTH WEST PAINT & BODY SHOP LP, B & B MAIN ST AUTO 

STORAGE, CITY OF BELLAIRE, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1056216

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed February 2, 2015. To date, the 

filing fee of $195.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant has established 

indigence has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. Therefore, the court issues the 

following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $195.00 to the 

clerk of this court on or before May 6, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant 
fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be 

dismissed.

PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00064-CV

Jonathan Aflatouni, a/k/a John 

Aflatouni

v.

Mark Anthony Montoya and Enid 

Montoya

§

§

§

§

§

From the 431st District Court

of Denton County

(2012-71252-431)

April 30, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial 

court is affirmed. We remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

It is further ordered that Appellant Jonathan Aflatouni, a/k/a John Aflatouni 

shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot_____________

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.1561 Evoked photon image capture device. ( a ) *Identification.* An evoked photon image capture device is a prescription, electrically powered device intended for use as a noninvasive measurement tool that applies electricity to detect electrophysiological signals emanating from the skin, which are reported numerically and as images without clinical interpretation. The device is not intended for diagnostic purposes.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 882.9.
[81 FR 67155, Sept. 30, 2016]
Swanson. Brian, (OST) DOT.. OST- 200§ -1;E~ /") 

From: John Bell [John_beIl1 @verizon.net] 

Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 2:34 PM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Cc: gpjt@charter.net; jaimetrautman@gmail.com 

Subject: Fw: Cape Air v.Colgan Air 

In paragraph, line 3 of my e-mail below, the sentence should begin: "Quite often not all the 

seats * * * 

Before voicing an opinion on the merits of whether Cape Air or Colgan Air should be approved as our 

area's Essential Air Service (EAS) provider, I have waited until I felt comfortable in making an 

informed decision. After reviewing all information that I have been able to gather, including a 

conversation with our extremely able area legislator, Dr. Robert Heins, and a thoughtful opinion letter 

written by Andrew Schonbek, a business and civic leader in Clinton County, that appeared in the 

Press Republican on February 13, 2010, I believe that it would be a great mistake to shift from Cape 

Air to Cogan Air. 

Since retiring as a judge of the New York State Court of Claims, my wife and I have been required to 

fly frequently to Boston because of serious medical procedures that I have been required to 

undergo. The service that we have received from Cape Air has been exemplary. Quite often, all the 

seats have been been taken. One one occasion, my wife and I were the only passengers. I do not 

believe that at this pOint in time an airplane with greater seating capacity than that of Cape Air is 

necessary. The cost to passengers 'flying to Boston will be greater if Colgan Air is used. I believe that 

anyone who believes that once Colgan Air is the provider its rates will not be raised substantially will 

soon learn that the rates will be increased. I ask that you determine whether Colgan Air does have, 

as stated by Mr.Schonbek, "a track record of aggressively increasing prices in other markets in which 

it has been awarded EAS contracts. II 

If Cape Air is satisfying the needs of our citizens and Colgan Air is seeking a federal subsidy 59 

percent higher than that of Cape Air,one would think that such factor indeed would have a controlling 

effect. 

I urge that the recommendation by a majority only of county legislators should only be one factor with 

respect to an informed and ultimate decision and certainly not contrOlling, especially in view of 

financial problems with which our government is faced. 

1
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.5820 Systemic lupus erythematosus immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the autoimmune antibodies in serum and other body fluids that react with cellular nuclear double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or other nuclear constituents that are specifically diagnostic of SLE. Measurement of nuclear double-stranded DNA antibodies aids in the diagnosis of SLE (a multisystem autoimmune disease in which tissues are attacked by the person's own antibodies).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1800 Schirmer strip. ( a ) *Identification.* A Schirmer strip is a device made of filter paper or similar material intended to be inserted under a patient's lower eyelid to stimulate and evaluate formation of tears.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). If the device is made of the same materials that were used in the device before May 28, 1976, the device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 35605, Sept. 14, 1988; 66 FR 38812, July 25, 2001]
Exhibit 32.1



August 13, 2003



Securities and Exchange Commission

Judiciary Plaza

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549



| | RE: |  | Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------



Ladies and Gentlemen:



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Form 10-Q of
STERIS Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, that, to such officers
knowledge:



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



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to STERIS Corporation and will be retained by STERIS Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



| |  |  |  | /s/  Les C. Vinney
| |  |  |  | ------------------
| |  |  |  | Name:             
| |  |  |  | Title:            
| |  | 
| |  |  |  | /s/  Laurie Brlas 
| |  |  |  | Name:             
| |  |  |  | Title:
#### JACKSON *v.*THE STATE.

No. 8887.

April 16, 1932.

*773
      *George B. Culpepper Jr.,*and *A. C. Riley,*for plaintiff in error.

*George M. Napier, attorney-general, Charles H. Garrett, solicitor-general,*and *T. R. Gress, assistant attorney-general,*contra.

Gilbert, J.

1. Extraordinary motions for new trial are not favored. The defendant, when on trial, stated to the court and jury that he had confessed, but that the confession was a “frame-up” brought-about by Anderson, who was in jail with h'im. The accused must have known then all that he now incorporates in his motion, and it was his duty promptly to advise his counsel. If such had been done, counsel could and would have quickly questioned the witnesses. Both of the witnesses from whom the newly discovered evidence is produced are felony convicts.

2-. The alleged newly discovered evidence introduced by the accused in his motion for a new trial on extraordinary grounds, together with the counter-showing by the State, makes an issue of conflicting evidence. The trial judge who possessed a more intimate knowledge of the circumstances and the character of the witnesses, overruled and denied the motion. This court must affirm that judgment. To reverse the finding would be to refuse to follow an unbroken line of previous decisions which' are binding authority. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*