alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SciQuest, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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 report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers 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 have:
 a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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.
    
    [Reserved]c.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and to the
audit committee 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 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.
 By:
    
    /s/ Rudy C. Howard

Rudy C. HowardChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:
    
    November 12, 2010
**Exhibit 14.5**

**Consent of independent accountants**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 of National Grid Transco plc (File numbers 333-33094, 333-65968, 333-97249, 333-103768 and 333-107727) of our report dated May 28, 2004 relating to the financial statements of Energis Polska Sp. z o.o. for the year ended December 31, 2001 which appears in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers Sp. z o.o.

PricewaterhouseCoopers Sp. z o.o.Warsaw, PolandJune 16, 2004

----
#### § 10.220 Withdrawal of election to participate in WEA.

A CMS provider that elects to transmit WEA Alert Messages, in part or in whole, may withdraw its election without regulatory penalty or forfeiture if it notifies all affected subscribers as well as the Federal Communications Commission at least sixty (60) days prior to the withdrawal of its election. In the event that a carrier withdraws from its election to transmit WEA Alert Messages, the carrier must notify each affected subscriber individually in clear and conspicuous language citing the statute. Such notice must promptly inform the customer that he or she no longer could expect to receive alerts and of his or her right to terminate service as a result, without penalty or early termination fee. Such notice must facilitate the ability of a customer to automatically respond and immediately discontinue service.

[78 FR 16807, Mar. 19, 2013]
#### § 302-12.118 Under a homesale program, may we establish a maximum home value above which we will not pay for homesale services?

Yes, if a home exceeding the maximum value above which you will not pay is sold under your homesale program, the employee will be responsible for any additional costs. You must establish a maximum amount commensurate with your agency's experience. You may consider, among other factors, budgetary constraints, the value range of homes in areas where you have offices, and the value range of homes previously entered in your program.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18344, Apr. 1, 2011]
qhc-ex101_12.htm



Exhibit 10.1

 

QUORUM HEALTH CORPORATION

 

Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement

Robert H. Fish

Effective Date: July 16, 2019

WHEREAS, Quorum Health Corporation (the “Company”) and Robert H. Fish (“Executive”) entered into an Employment Agreement effective as of May 21, 2018 (as amended, restated or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Employment Agreement”); 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to enter into this Amendment No. 1 to the Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) in order to clarify the terms of the Employment Agreement;

WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have their respective meanings as set forth in the Employment Agreement; and

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, of the mutual promises contained herein and of other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.


	
 
	
1.
	
Amendment to Section 3(a)(ii)(B).  Section 3(a)(ii)(B) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following:




“If the Qualifying Termination occurs during the 24-month period following a Change of Control (as defined in the Quorum Health Corporation 2016 Stock Award Plan) (the “Change in Control Protection Period”) and the Change of Control constitutes a change in ownership or effective control, or a change in the ownership of a substantial portion of the assets, of the Company under Section 409A of the Code (a “409A CIC”), the Company will pay Executive a lump sum payment in an amount equal to $6,075,000 on the sixtieth day following Executive’s Qualifying Termination.”


	
 
	
2.
	
Agreement.  The term “Agreement” as used in the Employment Agreement shall hereafter mean the Employment Agreement as amended by this Amendment.





	
 
	
3.
	
Effect of Amendment.  Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with all of the terms and conditions thereof and is hereby ratified and confirmed.  The execution, delivery and performance of this Amendment will not, except as expressly provided herein, constitute a waiver of any provision of, or operate as a waiver of any right, power or remedy of the parties under, the Employment Agreement or any other document relating to the Employment Agreement.




 



 


	
 
	
4.
	
Incorporation by Reference.  The general provisions set forth in Sections 7 and 8 of the Employment Agreement are incorporated herein by reference and shall apply mutatis mutandis to this Amendment.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first set forth above.

 

QUORUM HEALTH CORPORATION

 

By:/s/ R. Harold McCard, Jr. 
Name:R. Harold McCard, Jr. 
Title:SVP and Secretary   

 

EXECUTIVE


/s/ Robert H. Fish

Robert H. Fish
035PA12-2

#### Connie Chandler, Employee, by her Guardian ad Litem, Celeste M. Harris v. Atlantic Scrap & Processing, Employer and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier

1. Defs’ Motion for Temporary Stay (COA14-1351)

1. Allowed 01/06/2016

Dissolved 04/13/2016

2. Defs’ Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Denied

3. Defs’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Denied
BOARD: 

Paul C. Aughtry, I11 

Chairman 

Edwin H. Cooper, 111 

Vice Chairman 

Steven G. Kjsncr 

BOARD: 

Henry C. Scorr 

M. David Mitchell. MD 

Glenn A. h4cCall 

Secrerar) C Earl Hunter Comrn~ss~oner 

Aamotrizg iindp,otecariy thr halt/? o/ihr piibiil rind tile 

March 4,201 1 -3 s-., pf %* I @JJQ~;~ 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, Esq., Regional Administrator c 3 

U.S. EPA, Region 4 ,r' qh& J; . ;.'fri; Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Re: Ramifications of federal Greenhouse Gas Rule and State Implementation Plan (SIP) Approvals 

Dear Ms. Fleming: 

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Department) submits this letter 

pursuant to the request made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in light of its June 3,20 10, 

publication of the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration [PSD] and Title V Greenhouse Gas [GHG] 

Tailoring Rule" (75 FR 3 15 14) and December 30,2010, publication of "Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans" (75 FR 82536) in the Federal Register. 

The South Carolina General Assembly enacted a Joint Resolution, effective June 1 1,20 10, that make the 

provisions of the EPA7s Tailoring Rule effective in South Carolina. This resolution provides the State 

with the authority to implement the federal Tailoring Rule thresholds in our PSD and Title V programs 

and the Department is implementing its PSD and Title V programs as modified by the Tailoring Rule. 

The EPA has requested a letter from the Department to narrow our SIP so that our PSD program applies 

to GHG-emitting sources that emit GHGs at or above Tailoring Rule thresholds in order for our 8-hour 

Ozone Infrastructure SP submittal to be approved. In order to facilitate the approval of our SIP, the 

Department requests that EPA remove from consideration that portion of South Carolina's SIP from 

which EPA rescinded their previous approval of the PSD program (relating to the Tailoring Rule GHG 

thresholds). 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Myra Reece, Chief of the Bureau of Air 

Quality at 803-898-4123 or by email at reecemc@dhec.sc.gov. 

~obert W. King, Jr., P.E. 

Deputy Commissioner 

Environmental Quality Control 

ec: Carol Kemker, US EPA Region 4 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief Regulatory Development Section, EPA Region 4 

Myra Reece, Chief, BAQ, SCHEC 

Renee Shealy, Assistant Bureau Chief, BAQ, SCDHEC 

Robert J. Brown, Jr., Director of Air Assessment, Innovation, and Regulation, BAQ, SCDHEC 

Maeve S. R. Mason, Regulation & SIP Management Section, BAQ, SCDHEC 

SOUTI-i CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENYIRONMENTXL CON'I'IiOI, 

2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: (803) 898-3432 www.scdhec.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ATLAS
CORPORATION MARCH 31, 1997 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             188
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      895
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        957
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,162
<PP&E>                                          65,027
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,027
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,740
<BONDS>                                         13,310
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,220
<OTHER-SE>                                    (17,581)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,288
<SALES>                                            654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   654
<CGS>                                              864
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      864
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   664
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,603
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,566)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,566)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KEVIN LAMONT JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (6:09-cr-00282-GRA-3)

Submitted: August 11, 2011 Decided: September 13, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Margaret A. Chamberlain, CHAMBERLAIN LAW FIRM, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Lamont Jackson appeals from the fifty-seven 

month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy 

to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. We 

previously remanded this case for the district court to address 

Jackson’s arguments for a below-Guidelines sentence and provide 

individualized reasoning for the sentence imposed. On remand, 

the court considered the parties’ arguments and again imposed a 

fifty-seven month sentence. 

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there 

are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the 

district court erred by failing to apply the Guidelines in 

effect at the time of resentencing. The Government has declined 

to file a brief, and Jackson has not filed a pro se supplemental 

brief. After a careful review of the record, we affirm.

Jackson asserts that the district court erred by not 

applying the Guidelines in effect at the time of Jackson’s 

resentencing. However, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(g) (2006) explicitly 

states that, when resentencing after appellate remand, a 

district court should apply the sentencing guidelines “that were 

in effect on the date of the previous sentencing of the 

defendant prior to the appeal.” See also United States v. 
3

Bordon, 421 F.3d 1202, 1206-07 (11th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, 

this claim is without merit.

Our review of the record pursuant to Anders reveals no 

meritorious claims. Accordingly, we affirm Jackson’s sentence. 

This court requires that counsel inform Jackson in writing of 

his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Jackson requests that a petition be filed, 

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

then counsel may motion this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Jackson. 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
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,

Appellant

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2019-2246, 2019-2247, 2019-2248

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2017-

01891, IPR2017-01892, IPR2017-01893.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

MARC N. HENSCHKE, Cantor Colburn LLP, Hartford, 

CT, argued for appellant. Also represented by ANDREW C.

RYAN. 

 CHRISTINA JORDAN MCCULLOUGH, Perkins Coie, LLP, 

Seattle, WA, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

DANIEL T. SHVODIAN, Palo Alto, CA. 

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

Case: 19-2246 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2020
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LINN, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

September 11, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 19-2246 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2020
No. 11-9860.

#### Hennis *v.*Hemlick et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### GEORGE, the Count Joannes, Respondent, *v*. LOUIS J. JENNINGS and GEORGE JONES, Editor and Publisher of the “ New York Times ” Newspaper.

*Libel&emdash;truth of allegations*— *ba/r to suit in civil actions*— *Motive inmaterial*— *otherwise in criminal prosecutions*— *State Gons., art.*1, *sec.*8 — *Motion for a new trial—ground of, should be stated.*

It is not error to deny a motion for a new trial when no grounds for it are stated; nor will the appellate court entertain questions raised there for the first time.

*67The constitutional provision (§ 8, art. 1) that, in cases of libel, “if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted,” applies only to criminal prosecutions.

In civil actions, where the truth of the alleged libel is pleaded in justification, it may be proved as a complete bar to the suit. In such cases the motive with which the publication was made is not material. *

The rule is the same in slander cases, †

Appeal .from a judgment entered on a verdict, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. This action was brought to recover damages of the defendants for the publication of an alleged libelous article concerning the plaintiff in the New York Times, of January 27, 1871.

*Hamilton Cole,*for the appellants.

*George, the Count Joannes,*respondent in person.

*

Root v. King, 7 Cow., 619 ; S. C., 4 Wend., 113.

†

 Baum v. Clause, 5 Hill, 196.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J.

Daniels and Brady, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
#### § 101.1405 Channeling plan.

Each license shall have one spectrum block of 500 megahertz per geographic area that can be divided into any size channels. Disaggregation is not allowed.
Exhibit 31.1

I, Christian A. Larsen, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of E-LOAN, Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures 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; and

(c) 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;
and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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; and

(b) 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.

November 14, 2003

/s/ Christian A. Larsen 		   Christian A. Larsen
   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

WILLIAM DICKS, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF 

PROBATION AND PAROLE, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 69 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 7th day of July, 2015, the Application to File Reconsideration of 

Denial of Allowance of Appeal Out of Time is DENIED.
Administrative Order No. 2022-05

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

O R D E R

Resuming Court Operations

Upon consideration of recent changes to public health 

guidance and conditions within Washington, D.C. and the 

National Capital Region, the court finds that the existing 

restrictions on court operations are no longer necessary.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Administrative Order No. 2021-10 (June 22, 2021) 

is rescinded, effective September 12, 2022, 12:01 

a.m. (Eastern), at which point the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall resume 

normal operations.

(2) The Clerk’s Office remains authorized to issue any 

additional health and safety protocols and 

procedures necessary to support in-person 

argument or to provide accessibility and 

availability of the Clerk’s Office to receive 

nonelectronic filings pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 26 and Federal Circuit Rule

26. The Clerk’s Office shall provide public notice 

on the court’s website of any such protocols or 

procedures.

(3) The Clerk’s Office is further directed to continue 

to provide online audio streaming of public court 

hearings. 
2 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

(4) The Circuit Executive and Clerk of Court is 

directed to provide public notice of this Order and 

to take any necessary and proper actions to 

implement the provisions of this Order.

FOR THE COURT

September 9, 2022 /s/ Kimberly A. Moore

 Date Kimberly A. Moore

Chief Judge