alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Michael L. DeMarco, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 included inthis 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 thisreport;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 controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; 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 (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. 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 theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: January 14, 2008   /s/ Michael L. DeMarco Michael L. DeMarco,  Chief Financial Officer  
25
§ 456.105 UR committee required. The UR plan must— ( a ) Provide for a committee to perform UR required under this subpart;
( b ) Describe the organization, composition, and functions of this committee; and
( c ) Specify the frequency of meetings of the committee.
Order entered September 5, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00780-CV

WHITE NILE SOFTWARE, INC., Appellant

V.

CARRINGTON, COLEMAN, SLOMAN & BLUMENTHAL, LLP, Appellee

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-17105

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s September 3, 2019 unopposed motion for an extension of 

time to file its brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to October 10, 

2019. We caution appellee that further extension requests in this accelerated appeal will be 

disfavored.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1863 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1863

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a two-year pilot 
program to use a mobile processing unit to perform certain services of 
                  the Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 17, 2007

Mr. Lamborn (for himself and Mr. Buyer) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a two-year pilot 
program to use a mobile processing unit to perform certain services of 
                  the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. MOBILE BENEFITS PILOT PROGRAM.

    (a) Pilot Program.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall conduct 
a pilot program in three States to use a mobile processing unit to 
conduct outreach, take applications from veterans for benefits 
administered by the Secretary, and determine the status of claims 
submitted by veterans for such benefits.
    (b) Termination.--The authority to conduct a pilot program under 
this section shall terminate on the date that is two years after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D2023-2030

LT Case No. 2021-CF-970

_____________________________ 

ADAM CHRISTIAN MAYO, 

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumter County. 

Michelle Morely, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Louis A. Rossi, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. 

Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee. 

August 20, 2024 

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

MAKAR, EISNAUGLE, and PRATT, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
#### § 56.109 Grant payments.

The Secretary shall from time to time make payments to a grantee of all or a portion of any grant award, either in advance or by way of reimbursement for expenses incurred or to be incurred, to the extent he determines such payments necessary to promote prompt initiation and advancement of the approved project.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Form 10-Q of Cortech,  Inc. for the nine months ended  September 30, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000728478                  
<NAME>                                         CORTECH, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         11,632
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,764
<PP&E>                                          7,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                  7,246 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,860
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             777
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            4
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,079
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,860
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  800
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   4,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,111)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (4,111)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,111)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (2.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (2.22)
        


</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 26, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1983

Lower Tribunal No. 18-33927

________________

Raul Mas Canosa,

Appellant,

vs.

City of Coral Gables, Florida, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles 

Johnson, Judge.

Rene E. Lamar; and New Civil Liberties Alliance, and Sheng Li, Jared 

McClain, and Richard A. Samp (Washington, DC), for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Barbara Junge, Assistant 

Attorney General (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees Florida Department of 

Law Enforcement and Commissioner Richard Swearingen; Stearns 

Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., and Abigail G. Corbett, 

and Giselle Gutierrez; and Frank A. Shepherd, P.A., and Frank A. 

Shepherd; GrayRobinson, P.A., and Jack R. Reiter, Veronica A. Meza and 

Sydney M. Feldman, for appellee City of Coral Gables. 
2

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Amendment to the 2007 Letter Agreement, dated as of December 22, 2008



 Exhibit 10.26.2 
 December 22, 2008 
 Gary C. Crittenden 
 Citigroup Inc. 
 399 Park Avenue 
 New York, NY 10043 
 Dear Gary: 
 In our letter
agreement dated February 23, 2007 (the “Letter Agreement”), we agreed to amend the Letter Agreement as necessary to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and set forth below are such
amendments: 
 In paragraph 2(a), “2009” shall be replaced with “in 2009, before March 15, 2009.” 
 In paragraph 7, “2008 Award” shall be replaced with “2008 Award in 2009, before March 15, 2009.” 
 The following shall be added to the end of paragraph 11: “Any such reimbursement payment shall be paid to you no later than the end of your taxable year next
following your taxable year in which the tax (and any income or other related taxes or interest or penalties thereon) on a payment are remitted to the Internal Revenue Service or any other applicable taxing authority, and any other reimbursement
payment shall be paid to you in the year in which you incur the reimbursable cost.” 
 In paragraph 17, “termination of employment” shall be
replaced with “separation from service” and “termination” shall be replaced with “separation.” 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	 /s/    Paul McKinnon

	Paul McKinnon
	Head, Human Resources
	
	Accepted and agreed:
	
	 /s/    Gary C. Crittenden

	Gary C. Crittenden
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

August 23, 2018.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00701- CR

IN RE RONALD SCOTT CATT, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12- DCR -061927



### MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 9, 2018, relator Ronald Scott Catt filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017 ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Maggie Perez

- Jaramillo , presiding judge of the 400th District Court of Fort Bend County , to County to rule on relator’s Motion to Releas e Property and2

motions seeking a ruling on that motion

. Relator also filed a motion asking our court to take judicial notice of the trial court’s record. The Motion to Release Property asks the trial court to release property of relator that was seized pursuant to a search warrant, including two automobiles and two motorcycles. The property at issue was forfeited to the State in a civil forfeiture proceeding. See Catt v. DeLozier , No. 14

- 16 -00524-CV, 2017 WL 2384636, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 1, 2017, pet. denied). Because the property at issue has been forfeited relator’s Motion to Release Property and his petition for writ of mandamus are moot. The trial court is not required to rule on a motion that has become moot. See In re Douglas , No. 14- 10 -00820-CV, 2010 WL 3504760, at *1 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 9, 2010, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) ; Davis v. West , 433 S.W.3d 101, 109 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied); Palacios v. Rayburn , 516 S.W.2d 292, 294 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1974, no writ). The court will not issue mandamus “if for any reason it would be useless or unavailing.” Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia , 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion to take judicial notice as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Donovan, Wise, and Jewell. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
EXHIBIT 10.92

                              URT INDUSTRIES, INC.
                      1180 East Hallandale Beach Boulevard
                           Hallandale, Florida 33009

                                     October 30, 2000

Peaches Entertainment Corporation
1180 East Hallandale Blvd.
Hallandale, FL 33009

Gentlemen:

        URT Industries, Inc. ("URT") and Peaches Entertainment Corporation
("Peaches") have entered into an agreement dated August 1, 2000 under which a
proposal to effect the transaction described therein with respect to Peaches'
Mobile, Alabama property is subject to obtaining, by November 1, 2000, the
approval of Barnett Bank or its successor (the "Bank") to keep its existing
payment schedule in place in connection with the proposed arrangements described
in such agreement. The purpose of this letter is to confirm our agreement that
for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, URT and PEC have agreed to extend to December 1, 2000 the November
1, 2000 deadline so contained in such August 1, 2000 agreement.

        Please sign below to evidence our agreement.

                                               Very truly yours,

                                               URT INDUSTRIES, INC.

                                               By:  /s/ Brian Wolk
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  Executive Vice-President

AGREED TO AND APPROVED:

PEACHES ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION

By:  /s/ Jason Wolk
   -------------------------
    Executive Vice-President
#### Diana Pearl ARNOLD, Appellant, v. James Elmer MILLER, Appellee.

No. W-214.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 22, 1981.

Michael Jones of Selby, Chesser, Win-gard, Barr & Jones, Fort Walton Beach, for appellant.

James G. Etheredge of Etheredge, Chavis & Harrell, Fort Walton Beach, for appellee.

BOOTH, Judge.

This cause is before us on appeal from an order reducing to judgment an Ohio dissolution of marriage decree, modifying that decree as to visitation rights with the minor child of the parties. The mother appeals the denial of her petition to modify the Ohio decree so as to increase the amount of child support.

At the time of dissolution in 1972, the minor child of the parties, born in 1969, was three years old. Child support was set in the Ohio decree at $15 a week.1 In 1973, the father’s support obligation was raised to $20 a week. There it remained until 1979, when appellant filed her Florida petition.

Appellant’s income in 1973 was $9,725, and the father’s was $11,000. By the time of the 1979 hearing, the mother’s individual income was $6,100; the father’s was $17,-800. Both parties had remarried in the interim, and their respective spouses were employed. Whether or not the trial judge should have considered spouses’ incomes was not raised on appeal. *See, Harville v. Harville,*369 So.2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); *1167*Condon v. Condon,*295 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); and *Birge v. Simpson,*280 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Nor is it certain, because he gave no reason for denying the petition, that the trial judge did in fact consider respective spouses’ incomes, details of which were introduced into evidence. The law is clear that the obligation of support of a child remains with the natural parents and is not extinguished by subsequent marriage. Florida Statutes, Section 61.13.

In the instant case, uncontroverted testimony established that, since the initial decree, child-rearing expenses had increased to $440 a month. The evidence further established that the father’s income had increased significantly, and the mother’s income had decreased. We hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the mother’s petition to increase the amount of the support. *Melvin v. Melvin,*391 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); *Hall v. Hall,*363 So.2d 137 (Fla.1978). An award of less than $35 a week would be an abuse of discretion, although a larger amount could, in the discretion of the court, be awarded. On remand, the trial court is directed to increase support to no less than $35 per week and to award the wife’s costs and reasonable attorney fees in accordance with the principals stated in *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197, 1204-1205 (Fla.1980).

REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

1

. The Ohio decree also required the father to keep medical hospitalization insurance for the child and bear half of all other medical expenses. The mother’s present husband is in the military, and most of the child’s medical needs are provided by the military, thereby relieving the father of that financial burden.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549



We are aware that our report dated July 10, 1997 on our review of interim
financial information of Life Technologies, Inc. (the Company) for the three-
month and six-month periods ended June 30, 1997 and 1996, included in this Form
10-Q is incorporated by reference in the Company's registration statements on
Form S-8, Registration No. 333-28607, Registration No. 333-03773, Registration
No. 33-59741, Registration No. 33-21807, Registration No. 33-956, and the
Company's registration statement on Form S-3, Registration No. 33-29536.
Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not
be considered a part of the registration statements prepared or certified by us
within the meaning of Section 7 and 11 of that Act.



                            /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.



Rockville, Maryland
July 10, 1997

                                      14
§ 456.381 Reports of evaluations and plans of care. A written report of each evaluation and plan of care must be entered in the applicant's or beneficiary's record— ( a ) At the time of admission; or
( b ) If the individual is already in the ICF, immediately upon completion of the evaluation or plan.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In the Matter of

C.J.B.,

A Juvenile.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-14-00001-CV

Appeal from the

County Court

of Crane County, Texas

(TC# 363)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

trial court’s disposition order dated January 24, 2013. We therefore vacate the disposition order 

and remand the cause for a new disposition hearing, in accordance with this Court’s opinion. It 

appearing to this Court that Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court makes no 

other order with respect thereto. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 457
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

§ 457.700 Basis, scope, and applicability. ( a ) *Statutory basis.* This subpart implements— ( 1 ) Section 2101(a) of the Act, which sets forth that the purpose of title XXI is to provide funds to States to provide child health assistance to uninsured, low-income children in an effective and efficient manner that is coordinated with other sources of health benefits coverage;
( 2 ) Sections 2107(a), (b) and (d) of the Act, which set forth requirements for strategic planning, reports, and program budgets;
( 3 ) Section 2108 of the Act, which sets forth provisions regarding annual reports and evaluation; and
( 4 ) Section 1139A and 1139B of the Act, which set forth the requirements for child and adult health quality measures and reporting.
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart sets forth requirements for strategic planning, monitoring, reporting and evaluation under title XXI.
( c ) *Applicability.* The requirements of this subpart apply to separate child health programs and Medicaid expansion programs, except that §§ 457.730, 457.731, and 457.732 do not apply to Medicaid expansion programs. Separate child health programs that provide benefits exclusively through managed care entities may meet the requirements of §§ 457.730, 457.731, and 457.732 by requiring the managed care entities to meet the requirements of § 457.1233(d).
[66 FR 2683, Jan. 11, 2001, as amended at 85 FR 25635, May 1, 2020; 88 FR 60315, Aug. 31, 2023; 89 FR 8982, Feb. 8, 2024]