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

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF 

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Dominic G. Piscitelli, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AnaptysBio, 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 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 (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 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. 

Date: March 8, 2017 

 

| /s/ Dominic G. Piscitelli     |
|-------------------------------|
| Dominic G. Piscitelli         |
| Chief Financial Officer       |
| (Principal Financial Officer) |
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No. FAA
-2011
- 0823 Directorate ID: 2011
- SW
- 018
-AD Helicopter Model: Agusta S.p.A. Model A109A, A109A II, A109C, and A109K2 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 79 Helicopters in the US Registry. Reason : This superseding airworthiness directive (AD) retains the requirements of the Emergency AD and corrects a part number for the main rotor scissor fitting assembly. This AD requires inspecting the main rotor scissor fitting assem bly and in certain conditions , this AD requires replacing each fixing bolt and installing 2 washers under the head of each fixing bolt. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 153 Labor per Helicopter ( 15 minutes for inspection; 3 hours for replacement x $ 8 5 /work
-hour) $ 21.25 (inspection); $255 (replacement)
Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 21.25 (inspection); $429.25 (inspection and replacement) Total US Fleet Cost $ 4,943 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer: Sharon Miles
#### Sanders v. Failing *et al.,*appellants.

*Gross-actions*— *costs in.*

Where cross-actions involving the same subject-matter had been both referred to the same referee, and but one trial had of both : *held,*that the prevailing party was entitled to an allowance for witnesses’ fees in only one action.

Appeal from an order of the special term ordering a re-taxation of costs, and allowing certain items disallowed by the clerk of Fulton county.

John Fitzgerald, Senior, executed and delivered to his children John, Jr., William and Ellen, a mortgage upon premises owned by him. Afterward, John, Jr., and William assigned their interest in such mortgage to Daniel Failing and John P. Swartwout, as collateral security for a debt then due. After such assignment a foreclosure action was commenced. This action was defended by Henry 0. Sanders, one of the creditors of John Fitzgerald, Senior, who set up that said mortgage was in fraud of the rights of the creditors of said John Fitzgerald, Senior. Subsequent to the commencement of the foreclosure suit, Henry C. Sanders commenced an action in the nature of a creditor’s suit to set aside the mortgage in question and two other mortgages, given by John Fitzgerald, Senior, to other persons. In this action the plaintiffs in the foreclosure suit were joined as defendants.

Both cases when at issue were referred to the same referee, and, as the same issues were involved in both, it was stipulated between the attorneys for the parties that the evidence taken in the foreclosure *65action should be regarded and taken as evidence in the other-action, that is, that there should be but one trial of both actions.

The actions were tried and the defense set up by Sanders in the foreclosure suit established, and costs and disbursements allowed. Among the items taxed in the bill of costs, was a large sum for witnesses’ fees, referee’s fees, etc. The referee found, also, in favor of Sanders, the plaintiff in the creditor’s suit. Hpon the entry of judgment therein, plaintiff sought to have the same items taxed in the bill of costs, but the clerk of Fulton county refused to allow them. An appeal was made from the decision of the clerk, and a motion for re-taxation made at the Fulton special term. The court at special term directed the costs to be re-taxed and these items to be added to the allowance made by the clerk: For trial fee, $40; for referee’s fees, $125; for witnesses’ fees, $365.78; for term fee, $10. From the order of the special term this appeal was taken.

*James M. Dudley,*for appellants.

*Dari & Smith,*for respondents.

Per Curiam.

[The opinion of Mr. Justice Bocees in the case of *Simpson, Adm’r, etc.,*v. *McKay,*decided at the Saratoga special term, in February, 1873, was adopted as controlling the decision in this case. The order of the special term was thereupon reversed as to witnesses’ fees, and affirmed in other respects, without costs to either party.]

*Ordered accordingly.*

[The following is the case and opinion of Mr. Justice Bockes, above referred to: ]
October 4, 2004: After 18 years of relative quiescence, Mount St. Helens reawakened in September 

2004 as swarms of small earthquakes began in and beneath the 1980-86 lava dome. As magma rose toward the surface, a broad welt formed as parts of the 1980-86 lava dome, crater floor, and glacier deformed. Solid, hot lava reached the surface on October 11, 2004.

February 21, 2005: By early 2005, the new 

“whaleback” structure (see photo below left) and wasmall dump truck load) per second. By February, ththe 1980-86 lava dome and began pushing eastward

July 14, 2005: Almost 60 million cubic meters of new rock had been extruded by mid-July 2005. The 

“whaleback,” visible in early 2005, had cooled and broken apart. A tall spine was extruded, attaining a height of 2,368 meters, just 2 meters short of the lowest point on the crater rim. This spine later crumbled. 

October 24, 2005: Over one year had passed since the eruption began. During this time, the new lava 

dome had started pushing to the west, where it deformed and severely cracked the west arm of the glacier. The volume of new rock extruded was about 70 million cubic meters.

February 9, 2006: The new lava dome continue

projected skyward (see photo below right), rising at a volume roughly equal to that of the 1980-86 lava d

September 22, 2003: A lava dome about 80 million cubic meters in volume grew in the center of Mount 

St. Helens’ crater from 1980 to 1986. Crater Glacier grew between the dome and the high south crater walls and formed tongues of ice around the east and west sides of the dome. In 2003, the glacier was as much as 200 meters thick and continued to grow. The volcano was relatively quiet during this period.

REBUILDING MOUNT ST. HELENS

By

Steve P. Schilling, David W. Ramsey, James A. Messerich, and Ren A. Thompson

U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Geological Survey

2006

Actively growing fin of lav2006. Fin is about 100 m

photo by Steve P. Schilling

New lava dome exhibiting “whaleback” form as seen from the northwest on February 23, 2005. The 1980-86 lava dome is visible in the lower left corner. Dome growth severely cracked and deformed the east arm of Crater Glacier, visible to the left of the new dome.

Mount St. Helens Mount St. Helens ount St. Helens

Washington Washington ashington

1980-86 1980-86

Dome

1980-86

Dome

Crater Glacier
Exhibit 31.2  Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, Robert Rankin, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of House of Taylor Jewelry, 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 the 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 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 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; 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: November 9, 2007  /s/ Robert Rankin Robert Rankin Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer 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 quarterly report of MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David C. Choi, Chief 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:
 
 1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and operating results of the Company.
 
 /s/ David C. Choi

David C. ChoiChief Financial Officer
 November 8, 2010
# PAC Table 3d
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1587 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1587

To amend the lead prohibition provisions of the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 to provide an exemption for certain off-highway 
                   vehicles, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 2009

 Mr. Rehberg (for himself, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Pomeroy, and Mr. Simpson) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the lead prohibition provisions of the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 to provide an exemption for certain off-highway 
                   vehicles, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLES.

    (a) Exclusion of Certain Materials or Products and Inaccessible 
Component Parts.--Section 101(b) of the Consumer Product Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 is amended by redesignating paragraph (5) as 
paragraph (6) and inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
            ``(5) Exception for off-highway vehicles.--
                    ``(A) Determination by commission.--Subsection (a) 
                shall not apply to off-highway vehicles.
                    ``(B) Off-highway vehicles defined.--For purposes 
                of this section, the term `off-highway vehicle' means 
                any motorized vehicle designed to travel on 2, 3, or 4 
                wheels, having a seat designed to be straddled by the 
                operator and handlebars for steering control, and such 
                term also includes snowmobiles.''.
    (b) Additional Amendment.--Such section is further amended in 
paragraph (1)(A) by striking ``any''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Maggie B. Gaspard, Appellant, *v.*Catherine Pierre et al., Respondents.

*Gaspard*v. *Pierre,*119 App. Div. 867, affirmed.

(Argued February 18, 1909;

decided March 5, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 27, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to set aside a convevance of real property on the ground of fraud.

*Peter Mitchell*for appellant.

*William Arrowsmith*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edwabd T. Babtlett, Haight, Vann, Webneb, Willabd Babtlett and Hiscock, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
              This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted
              from  Pawnbrokers  Exchange,  Inc.  September  30, 2000  financial
              statements  and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to such
              financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                       0001069563
<NAME>                                      Pawnbrokers Exchange, Inc.
<CURRENCY>                                  US



<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                              SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1.00

<CASH>                                                    (3,694)
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             17,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               64,010
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          77,335
<PP&E>                                                    49,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                            21,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            104,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     162,499
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  191,372
<OTHER-SE>                                                (249,498)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              104,373
<SALES>                                                   114,774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          114,774
<CGS>                                                     43,165
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             43,165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          143,960
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        15,427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (72,351)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (72,351)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (72,351)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (.03)



</TABLE>
**Exhibit32.2**

 

I, Diane J. Ryan,Chief Financial Officer of Implant Sciences Corporation, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB ofImplant Sciences Corporation;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quareterly report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and wehave:

 

a.     designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;

 

b.     evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date ofthis quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c.     presented in this quarterly report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a.     all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified forthe registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b.     any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls.

 

 
|   | Date:  February 12, 2004 |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   |                               |
|   | /s/ Diane J. Ryan                  |   |
|   |                               |
|   | Diane J. Ryan                      |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer           |

 

1

----