alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

I, Harold L. Covert, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Openwave Systems 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 thestatements 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) forthe registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol 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 generallyaccepted accounting principles; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures 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 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, 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 whichare 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. 

Date: May 10, 2007
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"Rules of Practice Amendments 2020 - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"w6EOxkjP0X\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/rules-procedures-forms\/rules-of-practice-amendments\/rules-of-practice-amendments-2020\/\">Rules of Practice Amendments 2020<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/rules-procedures-forms\/rules-of-practice-amendments\/rules-of-practice-amendments-2020\/embed\/#?secret=w6EOxkjP0X\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Rules of Practice Amendments 2020” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"w6EOxkjP0X\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Amendment Notices Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2071(e) and Federal Circuit Rule 47(b), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an emergency amendment to Federal Circuit Rule 15(f).\u00a0 The amended rule goes into effect immediately on an interim basis and will become final on January 31, 2021, absent additional action by […]"}
EXHIBIT 32.1
TECHLABS, INC.
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
                1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Form 10-QSB of Techlabs, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jayme
Dorrough, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

         1.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 5(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


Date: May 23, 2005


         /s/ JAYME DORROUGH
         -------------------------------------
         Jayme Dorrough
         Chief Executive and Financial Officer




A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO ACCUIMAGE DIAGNOSTICS CORP. AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY ACCUIMAGE DIAGNOSTICS CORP. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### §§ 51-10.131-51-10.139 [Reserved]
46478.

#### THE STATE v. NEWSOME.

(378 SE2d 125)

Weltner, Justice.

Thomas James Newsome was charged with two counts of child molestation, was found guilty by a jury, and was sentenced to a term of years. As the jury retired, the trial court, over objection, allowed the alternate juror to accompany the jury to the jury room to be present during deliberations. The trial court instructed the alternate that he could not participate in the jury’s deliberations, in fact could not speak, until and unless he was instructed by the court to the contrary. Newsome appealed his convictions contending the presence of the alternate juror during the jury’s deliberations constituted a violation of OCGA § 15-12-171 which provides, in part: “the alternate jurors shall not retire with the jury of 12 for deliberation” and that such violation is presumptively injurious to him.

1. After this matter was docketed in the Court of Appeals and with leave of court, the record in the trial court was supplemented with affidavits from the alternate juror and the twelve trial jurors. In its opinion the Court of Appeals stated:

*188Decided April 14, 1989.

*Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, Debra H. Bernes, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellant.

*August Francis Siemon III,*for appellee.

> The State carries its burden when it produces the affidavits of the twelve members of the jury that their decision was not influenced at all by the alternate juror’s presence. [Cit.] Ten of the jurors so stated in their affidavits. However, one juror merely stated that “I do not recall whether or not the alternate juror was present during jury deliberations.” Another stated: “I don’t think the alternate juror was present during jury deliberations.” Neither juror could or did confirm that her decision was not affected by the alternate’s presence. There was no post-verdict poll which might have resolved the factual question. Because the State has the burden, the failure to show unanimity as to lack of any influence was fatal.

*Newsome v. State,*189 Ga. App. 329, 330 (375 SE2d 621) (1988). We granted certiorari to review the holding of the Court of Appeals.

2. After this matter was docketed in this court, the record in the trial court, with leave of this court, was supplemented with the affidavits of the two jurors who previously had failed to comment on whether the alternate juror had influenced the jury’s verdict. All of the affidavits establish that the alternate juror did not influence any juror, or the verdict of the entire jury. Accordingly, the presence of the alternate juror was harmless error. *Johnson v. State,*235 Ga. 486, 493-5 (220 SE2d 448) (1975).

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Smith, J., who dissents.*
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

1. The accompanying annual report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  |                                                  
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael Gluk
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  | Michael Gluk                                     
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before of after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit
32.2





Section
1350


CERTIFICATION








The
undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended March 30, 2008
as to which this Certification is an exhibit fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.








Signed
May 7, 2008.








/s/
      Harry V. MaccarroneHarry
      V. MaccarroneExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-9187.

#### Hilton *v.*Florida Parole Commission et al.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### § 15.517 Technical requirements for indoor UWB systems.

(a) Operation under the provisions of this section is limited to UWB transmitters employed solely for indoor operation.

(1) Indoor UWB devices, by the nature of their design, must be capable of operation only indoors. The necessity to operate with a fixed indoor infrastructure, e.g., a transmitter that must be connected to the AC power lines, may be considered sufficient to demonstrate this.

(2) The emissions from equipment operated under this section shall not be intentionally directed outside of the building in which the equipment is located, such as through a window or a doorway, to perform an outside function, such as the detection of persons about to enter a building.

(3) The use of outdoor mounted antennas, e.g., antennas mounted on the outside of a building or on a telephone pole, or any other outdoors infrastructure is prohibited.

(4) Field disturbance sensors installed inside of metal or underground storage tanks are considered to operate indoors provided the emissions are directed towards the ground.

(5) A communications system shall transmit only when the intentional radiator is sending information to an associated receiver.

(b) The UWB bandwidth of a UWB system operating under the provisions of this section must be contained between 3100 MHz and 10,600 MHz.

(c) The radiated emissions at or below 960 MHz from a device operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the emission levels in § 15.209. The radiated emissions above 960 MHz from a device operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the following average limits when measured using a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz:

| Frequency in MHz | EIRP in dBm |
| --- | --- |
| 960-1610 | −75.3 |
| 1610-1990 | −53.3 |
| 1990-3100 | −51.3 |
| 3100-10600 | −41.3 |
| Above 10600 | −51.3 |

(d) In addition to the radiated emission limits specified in the table in paragraph (c) of this section, UWB transmitters operating under the provisions of this section shall not exceed the following average limits when measured using a resolution bandwidth of no less than 1 kHz:

| Frequency in MHz | EIRP in dBm |
| --- | --- |
| 1164-1240 | −85.3 |
| 1559-1610 | −85.3 |

(e) There is a limit on the peak level of the emissions contained within a 50 MHz bandwidth centered on the frequency at which the highest radiated emission occurs, fM. That limit is 0 dBm EIRP. It is acceptable to employ a different resolution bandwidth, and a correspondingly different peak emission limit, following the procedures described in § 15.521.

(f) UWB systems operating under the provisions of this section shall bear the following or similar statement in a conspicuous location on the device or in the instruction manual supplied with the device:

“This equipment may only be operated indoors. Operation outdoors is in violation of 47 U.S.C. 301 and could subject the operator to serious legal penalties.”

[67 FR 34856, May 16, 2002; 67 FR 39632, June 10, 2002]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"23-2000: FREEMAN v. OPM [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"AIkl8vo1mJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-30-2023-23-2000-freeman-v-opm-order-23-2000-order-10-30-2023_2213852\/\">23-2000: FREEMAN v. OPM [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-30-2023-23-2000-freeman-v-opm-order-23-2000-order-10-30-2023_2213852\/embed\/#?secret=AIkl8vo1mJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-2000: FREEMAN v. OPM [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"AIkl8vo1mJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: FREEMAN v. OPM [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-2000 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
- 1 - Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director and Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 1212 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 202.842.4184 sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

December 31, 2009

via email and regulations.gov

Mr. Paul Gretch Director, Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Delta Air Lines, Inc. Single Operating Certificate Date Notification DOT-OST-2009-0195

Dear Mr. Gretch:

Pursuant to footnote 6 of Notice of Action Taken on September 3, 2009 in Docket DOT-OST2009-0195, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) hereby provides notice to the Department that December 31, 2009 has been established as the effective date for Delta’s amended FAA Operations Specifications incorporating Northwest Airlines, Inc. operations.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Brian Hedberg Linda Lundell Mike Orr Service List DOT-OST-2009-0195CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing document has been served this 31 st day of December, 2009, upon the following persons via email:

Air Carrier Name Email Address
AirTran Edward Faberman efaberman@wileyrein.com
Alaska Marshall Sinick msinick@ssd.com
American Carl Nelson carl.nelson@aa.com
Continental Dan Weiss dan.weiss@coair.com
Continental Hershel Kamen hkamen@coair.com
Frontier Edward Faberman efaberman@wileyrein.com
JetBlue Jonathan Hill jhill@dowlohnes.com
JetBlue Robert Land robert.land@jetblue.com Spirit Airlines David Kirstein dkirstein@yklaw.com Spirit Airlines Joanne Young jyoung@yklaw.com Sun Country John Fredericksen John.Fredericksen@suncountry.com
United Jeffrey Manley jeffrey.manley@united.com
United Julie Oettinger julie.oettinger@united.com US Airways Benjamin Slocum benjamin.slocum@usairways.com US Airways Howard Kass howard_kass@usairways.com
USA 3000 Pierre Murphy pmurphy@lopmurphy.com
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1701]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 011900A]

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:  Notice of public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the 
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup and 
Black Sea Bass Board (Board) will hold a public meeting.

DATES:  The meeting will be held Thursday, February 10, 2000, from 
1:00-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES:  This meeting will be held at the Radisson Hotel, 901 N. 
Fairfax Street, Alexandria, VA; telephone 703-683-6000.
    Council Address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 S. 
New Street, Dover, DE 19904, telephone 302-674-2331.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Daniel T. Furlong, Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: 302-674-
2331, ext. 19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The Council and Board will consider the 
following items: Discuss the development of a conservation equivalency 
amendment for summer flounder; discuss the development of an amendment 
to review allocation of annual total allowable catch and discards and 
revise summer period state by state quotas for scup; possible review 
and comment on 2000 specifications for summer flounder, scup, and black 
sea bass; discussion of disapproved portions of Sustainable Fisheries 
Act amendment for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass; and 
discussion of other measures that would be included in amendments to 
summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before the Council and Commission for discussion, these issues may not 
be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council 
action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this 
document and any issues arising after publication of this notice that 
require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been 
notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the 
emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Joanna Davis, 302-674-2331, at least 5 days prior 
to the meeting date.

    Dated: January 19, 2000.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 00-1701 Filed 1-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
```
# Comments on: 19-1951: SHARPE v. HHS [OPINION], Precedential