alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Dennis E. Valentine, certify that: 1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of JMAR Technologies, Inc.;  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this quarterly report (based on such evaluation);and  c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.         By:                                  /s/ Dennis E. Valentine    Dennis E. Valentine    Chief Financial Officer   May 12, 2006
572 P.2d 804

#### M. J. EVERTSEN, Mason Contractor, and Continental Casualty Company, Petitioners, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona, Respondent, Leo E. Harwood, Respondent Employee.

No. 13454-PR.

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc.

Dec. 6, 1977.

Jennings, Strouss & Salmon by Steven C. Lester, Phoenix, for petitioners.

John H. Budd, Jr., Chief Counsel by Linda J. Norton, Phoenix, for respondent.

CAMERON, Chief Justice.

Petition for review granted. The opinion of the Court of Appeals as reported in 573 P.2d 69 (Ariz.App.1977) is approved and adopted as the opinion of this court.

STRUCKMEYER, V. C. J., and HAYS, HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concur.
§ 1021.100 Definitions. Refer to § 1010.100 of this chapter for general definitions not noted herein. To the extent there is a differing definition in § 1010.100 of this chapter, the definition in this section is what applies to part 1021. Unless otherwise indicated, for purposes of this part: ( a ) *Business year* means the annual accounting period, such as a calendar or fiscal year, by which a casino maintains its books and records for purposes of subtitle A of title 26 of the United States Code.
( b ) *Casino account number* means any and all numbers by which a casino identifies a customer.
( c ) *Customer* includes every person which is involved in a transaction to which this chapter applies with a casino, whether or not that person participates, or intends to participate, in the gaming activities offered by that casino.
( d ) *Gaming day* means the normal business day of a casino. For a casino that offers 24 hour gaming, the term means that 24 hour period by which the casino keeps its books and records for business, accounting, and tax purposes. For purposes of the regulations contained in this chapter, each casino may have only one gaming day, common to all of its divisions.
( e ) *Machine-readable* means capable of being read by an automated data processing system.
|   | (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/                William N. Plamondon, III                                                                  |   |   |   |
| William                N. Plamondon, IIIPrincipal                Financial OfficerMay                15, 2007 |   |   |        |

----
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Accountability for Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo Following OAS Departure

# 									Accountability for Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo Following OAS Departure							

Press Statement

Office of the Spokesperson

November 19, 2023

Today, Nicaragua’s withdrawal from the Organization of American States (OAS) Charter took effect. Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo’s decision to further isolate Nicaragua from the international community demonstrates their desperation to avoid any effort by the OAS or like-minded partners to hold them accountable for egregious human rights abuses. Their abuses include unjustly detaining, convicting, and mistreating political prisoners – including Bishop Rolando Alvarez; attacking independent journalists; and forcing hundreds of civil society organizations and educational institutions to close or hand over operations to the state.

Nicaragua’s actions are an affront to the Western Hemisphere’s commitment to democracy. Despite Ortega and Murillo’s denunciation of the OAS Charter, Nicaragua remains bound by its human rights and governance obligations under remaining treaties and instruments, including the American Convention on Human Rights. The United States, working with our partners in the OAS, continues to review all available and appropriate tools to hold Ortega, Murillo, and their surrogates accountable for their actions. We renew our call for the Nicaraguan authorities to uphold their obligations and fulfill the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The OAS serves as the preeminent multilateral organization in the Western Hemisphere and has a long history of supporting the democratic advancement of all nations in the Americas. The United States reiterates our support for the people of Nicaragua and their pursuit of fundamental freedoms, human rights, and democracy.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsDemocracyHuman RightsNicaraguaOffice of the SpokespersonOrganization of American States

Back to Top
April 16, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PEDRO BELTRAN BATALL A , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00810

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
§ 601.206 Certification required to obtain reduced foreign tax rates under income tax treaties. ( a ) *Basis of certification.* Most of the income tax treaties between the United States and foreign countries provide for either a reduction in the statutory rate of tax or an exemption from tax on certain types of income received from sources within the foreign treaty country by citizens, domestic corporations, and residents of the United States. Some of the treaty countries reduce the withholding tax on such types of income or exempt the income from withholding tax after the claimant furnishes evidence that he is entitled to the benefits of the treaty. Other countries initially withhold the tax at statutory rates and refund the excess tax withheld after satisfactory evidence of U.S. residence has been accepted. As part of the proof that the applicant is a resident of the United States and thus entitled to the benefits of the treaty, he must usually furnish a certification from the U.S. Government that he has filed a U.S. income tax return as a citizen, domestic corporation, or resident of the United States.
( b ) *Procedure for obtaining the certification.* Most of the treaty countries which require certification have printed special forms. The forms contain a series of questions to be answered by the taxpayer claiming the benefits of the treaty, followed by a statement which the foreign governments use for the U.S. taxing authority's certification. This certification may be obtained from the office of the district director of the district in which the claimant filed his latest income tax return. Some certification forms are acceptable for Service execution; however, others cannot be executed by the Service without revision. In these instances the office of the district director will prepare its own document of certification in accordance with internal instructions. This procedure has been accepted by most treaty countries as a satisfactory substitute.
( c ) *Obtaining the official certification forms.* The forms may be obtained from the foreign payor, the tax authority of the treaty country involved, or the District Office, Foreign Operations District.
[34 FR 14601, Sept. 19, 1969, as amended at 49 FR 36500, Sept. 18, 1984]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Assistant Secretary Holmgren to Deliver Remarks on Intelligence Diplomacy

# 									Assistant Secretary Holmgren to Deliver Remarks on Intelligence Diplomacy							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

October 6, 2023

Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) Brett Holmgren will deliver remarks on the future of intelligence diplomacy and participate in panel discussions at the Cipher Brief Annual Threat Conference in Sea Island, Georgia, from October 7-9, 2023.  He will also discuss the role of open-source intelligence and technology in supporting INR’s mission, and provide views on world events.  Assistant Secretary Holmgren’s formal remarks will be on Monday, October 9, at 10:15 a.m. EDT.

For press inquiries, contact INRPublicAffairs@state.gov.

Tags

Bureau of Intelligence and ResearchDiplomacyOffice of the SpokespersonTechnology

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Corey Parks, Appellant.

[802 NYS2d 693]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered May 10, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to 5 to 15 years, to be served concurrently with previously imposed sentences in three other cases, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his prior criminal act, which formed the basis of his previous youthful offender adjudication, could not be used as an overt act on the instant conspiracy charge, essentially attacks the legal sufficiency of the indictment, i.e., that the conspiracy charge is supported by an improper overt act. Such claim was waived by defendant’s plea of guilty and waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Allen,*86 NY2d 599, 602-603 [1995] ; *see also People v Muniz,*91 NY2d 570, 575 [1998]; *People v Rodriguez,*227 AD2d 206, 207 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 993 [1996] ; *People v Hwi Jin An,*253 AD2d 657 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 949 [1998]; *People v Simms,*269 AD2d 788 [2000], *lv denied*94 NY2d 952 [2000]). While defendant’s claim that he should have been treated as a youthful offender pursuant to CPL 720.20 (2) is an attack on the legality of the sentence, and therefore could not be waived *(see Allen,*86 NY2d at 602-603), *154that statute does not apply to defendant’s instant conspiracy conviction. First, defendant’s prior charge ending in his adjudication as a youthful offender and the instant charge of conspiracy were not “set forth in separate counts of an accusatory instrument or set forth in two or more accusatory instruments consolidated for trial purposes” (CPL 720.20 [2]). Furthermore, defendant is not an “eligible youth” within the statute, because prior to the instant conspiracy conviction, he had been convicted of other felonies, and also adjudicated a youthful offender following conviction of a felony (CPL 720.10 [2] [b], [c]). Indeed, defendant, who admitted in his plea to remaining part of the conspiracy after reaching the age of 19, is not even a “youth” under the statute (CPL 720.10 [1]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6164

MILTON C. INCIARTE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN HAHN, Warden,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District

Judge. (CA-95-1490-A)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton C. Inciarte, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

reconsideration of an order denying Appellant's motion for a preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Inciarte v. Hahn,

No. CA-95-1490-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 8, 1995). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 315.65 Reissue. A bond on which a minor or other person under legal disability is named as the owner or coowner, or in which he or she has an interest, may be reissued under the following conditions: ( a ) A minor for whose estate no representative has been appointed may request reissue if the minor is of sufficient competency to sign his or her name to the request and to understand the nature of the transaction.
( b ) A bond on which a minor is named as beneficiary or coowner may be reissued in the name of a custodian for the minor under a statute authorizing gifts to minors upon the request of the adult whose name appears on the bond as owner or coowner.
( c ) A minor coowner for whose estate no representative has been appointed, may be named sole owner upon the request of the competent coowner.
( d ) Reissue to eliminate the name of a minor or incompetent for whose estate a legal representative has been appointed is permitted only if supported by evidence that a court has authorized the representative of the minor's or incompetent's estate to request the reissue. See § 315.23.
Except to the extent provided in paragraphs (a) through (d), of this section, reissue will be restricted to a form of registration which does not adversely affect the existing ownership or interest of a minor who is not of sufficient understanding to make a request, or other person under legal disability. Requests for reissue should be executed by the person authorized to request payment under §§ 315.60 and 315.63, or the person who may request recognition as voluntary guardian under § 315.64. [45 FR 64091, Sept. 26, 1980. Redesignated at 57 FR 39602, Sept. 1, 1992]
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 315.43 Effective date of request for payment. The Department of the Treasury will treat the receipt of a bond with an appropiate request for payment by: ( a ) A Federal Reserve Bank or Branch,
( b ) The Bureau of the Fiscal Service, or
( c ) A paying agent authorized to pay that bond, as the date upon which the rights of the parties are fixed for the purpose of payment.
ineffective for failing to cross-examine the victim about the distinctive

markings on Franklin's body. Franklin argued that these markings were very noticeable during sexual activity and the victim's inability to describe them would have "decimated" his credibility. However, the district court found that trial counsel "extensively and thoroughly cross-examined the victim," the record on appeal supports the district court's finding, and we conclude that the record repels Franklin's claim that trial counsel's performance was deficient in this regard.

Second, Franklin claims that the district court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call the victim's stepfather's roommate as a witness. Franklin argued that the roommate would have provided testimony that "negatively affected [the victim's] credibility regarding his version of events and times that said events took place." The district court found that "relying on this single witness would not have changed the outcome of the trial." We conclude that Franklin failed to provide specific factual allegations tending to demonstrate a reasonable probability that
the outcome of the trial would have been different had this witness been called to testify. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 (stating the test for establishing prejudice in an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim).

Third, Franklin claims that the district court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective. Franklin argued that appellate counsel failed to pursue valid legal issues on direct appeal and failed to consult with him on issues that he believed were important. The district court found that Franklin failed to present any non-frivolous claims that he wanted appellate counsel to
raise or demonstrate that these claims would have been successful on

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2J.

J.

direct appeal. We conclude that Franklin failed to provide specific allegations tending show that appellate counsel omitted issues that had a reasonable probability of success on appeal. See Kirksey, 112 Nev. at 998, 923 P.2d at 1114 (stating the test for establishing prejudice in an ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim).

Having concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Franklin was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.



### t-&-47Z i Hardesty

cc: Hon. Douglas E. Smith, District Judge The Kice Law Group, LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3
§ 36.3121(l)(1)-2 Amendment of agreement. ( a ) An agreement entered into by a domestic corporation as provided in § 36.3121(l)(1)-1 may be amended so as to be made applicable, in the same manner and under the same conditions, with respect to any one or more of the foreign subsidiaries of the domestic corporation not previously named in the agreement. See § 36.3121(l)(2)-1(b), relating to the effective period of an amendment of an agreement.
( b ) Form 2032 Supplement is the form prescribed for use in amending an agreement entered into by a domestic corporation as provided in § 36.3121(l)(1)-1.
( c ) A domestic corporation shall signify its desire to amend an agreement entered into by the corporation as provided in § 36.3121(l)(1)-1 by executing and filing Form 2032 Supplement in triplicate.
( d ) Form 2032 Supplement shall be executed and filed in the manner and in conformity with the requirements prescribed in the instructions relating to such form and in § 36.3121(l)(1)-1(c) in respect of an agreement on Form 2032. Form 2032 Supplement executed and filed as provided in this paragraph shall be signed and dated by the district director or director of the service center, and, upon such signing, the Form 2032 Supplement so executed and filed will constitute an amendment of the agreement entered into on Form 2032. The Internal Revenue Service will return one copy of the amendment to the domestic corporation, will transmit one copy to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and will retain one copy (together with all related papers).
[T.D. 6145, 25 FR 14021, Dec. 31, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7012, 34 FR 7694, May 15, 1969]
§ 34.305 Use of funds—Direct Component. ( a ) An activity may be funded in whole or in part if the applicable requirements of subparts C and D of this part are met.
( b ) When awarding contracts to carry out an activity under the Direct Component, a Gulf Coast State, coastal political subdivision, or coastal zone parish may give preference to individuals and companies that reside in, are headquartered in, or are principally engaged in business in the state of project execution consistent with Federal laws and policies on grants.
( c ) A Gulf Coast State, coastal political subdivision, or coastal zone parish may propose to issue subawards for eligible activities. Recipients that propose to issue subawards must demonstrate their ability to conduct subrecipient monitoring and management, as required by Federal laws and policies on grants.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 240.18 Lack of authority to shift liability. ( a ) This part neither authorizes nor directs a financial institution to debit the account of any person or to deposit any funds from any account into a suspense account or escrow account or the equivalent. Nothing in this part shall be construed to affect a financial institution's contract with its depositor(s) under authority of state law.
( b ) A financial institution's liability under this part is not affected by any action taken by it to recover from any person the amount of the financial institution's liability to the Treasury.