alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bank of Commerce Holdings (the registrant);2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this quarterly report;3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the registrant and we have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervisions, 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 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 that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 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.
 /s/ Linda J. Miles
#### RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Sixto ALFONSO and Juana Alfonso, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 78-2215.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 9, 1979.

Carey, Dwyer, Cole, Selwood & Bernard and Steven R. Berger, Miami, for appellant.

Sam Bloom, Miami, Sugarman & Arnold and David C. Arnold, Coral Gables, for ap-pellees.

Before PEARSON, KEHOE and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of *Travelers Ins. Co. v. Allen,*356 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 893 (Fla.1978).
HomeKiribati

# Kiribati

31 items

        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with Daniel J. Kritenbrink, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Dr. Mira Rapp-Hooper, Special Assistant to the President and NSC Senior Director for East Asia and Oceania	  Daniel J. KritenbrinkSeptember 29, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		State Department Hosts Agreement Signing between the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the Republic of Kiribati	  September 27, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken At a Signing Ceremony with Millennium Challenge Corporation CEO Alice Albright and iKiribati President Taneti Maamau	  Antony J. BlinkenSeptember 25, 2023Treaty RoomWashington, DC 
        -    Press Statement  		Kiribati’s National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 11, 2023 
        -    Fact Sheet  		U.S.-Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Dialogue in Papua New Guinea	  May 22, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Kiribati	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Kiribati	  March 20, 2023 
        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Investing in the Future of the Pacific: U.S. Assistance Continues to Address WWII-era Explosive Hazards	  September 29, 2022 
        -    DipNote: Military and Security  		Governance of the Seas: Assistance to Pacific Island Partners	  September 28, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Kiribati’s National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 11, 2022 

1234next page

Back to Top
#### § 582.300 Applicability of definitions.

The definitions in this subpart apply throughout the entire part.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

The Flight Shop, Inc. D/B/A/Professional Air and Aero Facilities, LLC Complainants 

## v. City ofBend, Oregon Municipal Airport Respondent Docket No. 16-14-12

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with 

### FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFRpart 16, subpart B, the date by whichthe Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extendedto September 14, 2016. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination inthis case.

Ke in C. Willis, Manager Ofi ce ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis 

# Joi\1£ 1.1,,2()/l, DATE.

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE '{ t I HEREBY CERTIFYthat onJune 

## !JI~ , 2016, I caused to beplaced 

### in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime to September 14, 2016 for FAA Docket 16-14-12 addressed to: Counsel for Complainant Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. McBreen & Kopko 500 North Broadway Jericho, NY 11753 Email: lkirsch@mklawnyc.com Martin E, Hansen, Esq. Francis, Hansen & Martin LLP 1148 NW Hill Street Bend, Oregon 977701 Email: mehralfrancishansen.com Counsel for Respondent Pablo 0. Nilesch Katherine M. Mapes Jessica R. Bell Spiegel & McDiarmid LLP 1875 Eye Street, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Email: pablo.nuesch(alspiegelmcd.com Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airports Compliance Division, ACO-I00

ClaudiaRoberts Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 28, 2016

p0620

Order 

Clerk

June 28, 2016

150895

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150895

COA: 323983

Bay CC: 10-010787-FC

DAVID BARRY BURNS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

By order of October 28, 2015, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the December 8, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Theal WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 73-1526.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 11, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

HARLEYSVILLE NATIONAL
CORPORATIONCERTIFICATIONPRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the Harleysville National Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, George S. Rapp, Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as added 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. |  | To my knowledge, the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
      the period covered by the Report.

|By: | /s/ George S.
      Rapp                                   | 
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
      Officer
|    | Harleysville National Corporation                         
|    |                                                           
|    | Date: March 7,
2008                                       

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 4, 2021

NO. 03-19-00083-CR

Dustin Ray Randig, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in 

the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-81434, No. 333-86028, No. 333-107976 and all amendments thereto) and Form S-8 (No.2-867474, No.2-91907, No.2-98732, No.33-6188, No.33-6203, No.33-13265, No.33-17720, No.33-30385, No.33-30386, No.33-36249, No.33-41999, No.33-42000, No.33-53054, No.33-66548, No.33-66546, No.33-55631, No.33-55633, No.33-66697, No.33-59981, No.33-59985, No.33-59987, No.333-12887, No.333-34285, No.333-57563, No.333-62159, No.333-74627, No.333-81433, No.333-81435, No.333-81437, No.333-90951, No.333-95421, No.333-38746, No.333-42888, No.333-43306, No.333-46436, No.333-52050, No.333-53584, No.333-57152, No.333-62960, No.333-66238, No.333-66240, No.333-69380, No.333-71900, No. 333-95643, No. 333-96549, No. 333-96555, No. 333-98807, No. 106205 and No. 106206) of LSI Logic Corporation of our report dated January 28 2004 [except for Note 14 as to which the date is February 19, 2004],relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears on page 93 of this Annual Report of Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP San Jose, California March 15, 2004
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41584 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MAGDALENO RODRIGUEZ, also known as Gordo,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:94 -CR- 199 -3

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Magdaleno Rodriguez , federal prisoner # 6 1992

- 079, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence based on Amendment 782 to United States Sentencing Guidelines and the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. He contends that the district court erred in failing to evaluate the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and his postsentencing rehabilitation. We review the district court’s denial of a

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 14, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41584 Document: 00514114189 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2017No. 16

- 41584

2 § 3582(c)(2) motion for an abuse of discretion. Unite d States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). I f a defendant is eligible for a reduction under § 3582(c)(2), the district court must consider the relevant § 3553(a) factors to decide whether a sentence reduction is merited in whole or in part under the specific circumstances of the case. Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). Contrary to Rodriguez’s assertion, the district court stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors. 

### See United States v. Cooley , 590 F.3d 293,
297

- 98 (5th Cir. 2009). With respect to Rodriguez’s argument that the court did not consider his postsentencing conduct, the record shows that he documented his rehabilitation efforts in his motion and that the district court thus had that information before it. Se e Evans , 587 F.3d at 672

- 73

. To the extent Rodriguez seeks to relitigate the appropriateness of the district court’s original findings regarding his role in the offense, he is not entitled to relief because a § 3582(c)(2) proceeding is not a full resentencing or an opportunity to challenge the original sentence. Dillon , 560 U.S. at 825

- 26; United States v. Hernandez , 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011 ). Rodriguez has not shown that the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion was an abuse of the district court’s discretion.
R odriguez also has not shown that the interests of justice require d the appointment of counsel for his § 3582(c)(2) motion

. The district court did not
abuse its discretion in failing to appoint coun sel. See Baranowski v. Hart , 486 F.3d 112, 126 (5th Cir. 2007). AFFIRMED. Case: 16-41584 Document: 00514114189 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2017
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, as Chief Executive
Officer of Transcend Services, Inc., certifies that to the undersigneds knowledge, the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Transcend Services, Inc. at the
dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Larry G. Gerdes    
|Larry G. Gerdes        
|Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 11, 2009
§ 10.11 Manufacturer civil monetary penalties. ( a ) *General.* Any manufacturer with a pharmaceutical pricing agreement that knowingly and intentionally charges a covered entity more than the ceiling price, as defined in § 10.10, for a covered outpatient drug, may be subject to a civil monetary penalty not to exceed $5,000 for each instance of overcharging, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section. This penalty will be imposed pursuant to the applicable procedures at 42 CFR part 1003. Any civil monetary penalty assessed will be in addition to repayment for an instance of overcharging as required by section 340B(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the PHSA.
( b ) *Instance of overcharging.* An instance of overcharging is any order for a covered outpatient drug, by NDC, which results in a covered entity paying more than the ceiling price, as defined in § 10.10, for that covered outpatient drug. ( 1 ) Each order for an NDC will constitute a single instance, regardless of the number of units of each NDC ordered. This includes any order placed directly with a manufacturer or through a wholesaler, authorized distributor, or agent.
( 2 ) Manufacturers have an obligation to ensure that the 340B discount is provided through distribution arrangements made by the manufacturer.
( 3 ) An instance of overcharging is considered at the NDC level and may not be offset by other discounts provided on any other NDC or discounts provided on the same NDC on other transactions, orders, or purchases.
( 4 ) An instance of overcharging may occur at the time of initial purchase or when subsequent ceiling price recalculations due to pricing data submitted to CMS or new drug price estimations as defined in § 10.10(c) result in a covered entity paying more than the ceiling price due to failure or refusal to refund or credit a covered entity.
# C_2005196EN.01000302.xml

| 11.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 196/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 196/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2970 — GE/ABB Structured Finance)

(2005/C 196/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 5 November 2002, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32002M2970. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32002M2970. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
<PAGE>   1
                              CERPROBE CORPORATION
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                            (UNAUDITED AND REVISED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED                    NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                             SEPTEMBER 30,                         SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                     -----------------------------       ------------------------------
                                                         1998              1997              1998               1997
                                                     -----------        ----------       -----------        -----------
<S>                                                  <C>                <C>              <C>                <C>         
Net income (loss)                                    $(3,557,202)       $2,962,096       $  (744,994)       $  (343,212)
                                                     ===========        ==========       ===========        ===========

Weighted average number of
common shares outstanding                              7,768,874         6,246,825         8,058,011          6,219,800

Common equivalent shares representing shares
issuable upon exercise of stock options                  157,694           390,840           286,833            390,840

Subtraction of common equivalent shares due to
antidilutive nature                                     (157,694)               --          (286,833)          (390,840)
                                                     -----------        ----------       -----------        -----------

Dilutive adjusted weighted average shares
and assumed conversions                                7,768,874         6,637,665         8,058,011          6,219,800
                                                     ===========        ==========       ===========        ===========




Basic net income (loss) per share                    $     (0.46)       $     0.47       $     (0.09)       $     (0.06)
                                                     ===========        ==========       ===========        ===========


Diluted net income (loss) per share                  $     (0.46)       $     0.45       $     (0.09)       $     (0.06)
                                                     ===========        ==========       ===========        ===========
</TABLE>