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

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

**REQUIRED BY RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE**

**ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED**

I, Peter S. Garcia, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of MDRNA, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 allmaterial 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 andprocedures (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)) for the registrant and we have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder 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 beingprepared; 

b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting 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; 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 30, 2010
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTesting for Random Limit Load Versus Static Limit LoadThis document is an effort to report the basic test findings in an ongoing quest for understanding how random load factors should be applied to structural components in order to verify the strength of space flight hardware. A Spacelab experiment known as the Atmospheric Emission Photometric Imager (AEPI) was subjected to both an expected flight random environment and the associated Miles' equation equivalent static load. During each of these tests, the fiberglass pedestal was instrumented with 16 triaxial strain gauges around its base. Component strains and invariant stresses were compared. As seen previously in other hardware tests, the stress distribution from the random environment was an order of magnitude below the comparable static stresses. With a proposed data acquisition system, a strain database will be developed that will quantify an empirical relationship between dynamic and static limit stresses. This event will allow a more accurate estimate of launch environment effects on new technology structural components.Document ID19970028919Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsLee, H. M.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1997Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-108542NAS 1.15:108542Accession Number97N27636Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970028919.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
From: gbrees1954@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:18:47 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gayle Brees

Avondale, AZ 85323
Exhibit 32.1

# Certification Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350,As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2003 (the
Report) of Immucor, Inc. (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I certify, to the best of my
knowledge, that:

(1)       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Registrant.

August 28, 2003

/s/ Edward L. Gallup

Edward L. Gallup
Chief Executive Officer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsModel-Based Engine Control Architecture with an Extended Kalman FilterThis paper discusses the design and implementation of an extended Kalman filter (EKF) for model-based engine control (MBEC). Previously proposed MBEC architectures feature an optimal tuner Kalman Filter (OTKF) to produce estimates of both unmeasured engine parameters and estimates for the health of the engine. The success of this approach relies on the accuracy of the linear model and the ability of the optimal tuner to update its tuner estimates based on only a few sensors. Advances in computer processing are making it possible to replace the piece-wise linear model, developed off-line, with an on-board nonlinear model running in real-time. This will reduce the estimation errors associated with the linearization process, and is typically referred to as an extended Kalman filter. The nonlinear extended Kalman filter approach is applied to the Commercial Modular Aero-Propulsion System Simulation 40,000 (C-MAPSS40k) and compared to the previously proposed MBEC architecture. The results show that the EKF reduces the estimation error, especially during transient operation.Document ID20160002248Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsCsank, Jeffrey T.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Connolly, Joseph W.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredFebruary 24, 2016Publication DateFebruary 1, 2016Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN29222NASA/TM-2016-219066E-19199Meeting InformationMeeting: AIAA SciTech 2016Location: San Diego, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: January 4, 2016End Date: January 8, 2016Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsFunding Number(s)WBS: WBS 109492.02.03.02.11Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Keywordsengine controlcontrol systems designcontrol theoryAvailable DownloadsNameType20160002248.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitle20160004767See AlsoModel-Based Engine Control Architecture with an Extended Kalman Filtervisibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
From: roycoats46@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:19:21 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Roy Coats

Jackson, TN 38305
From: mwarnke@ambrico.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:57:14 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Margaret Warnke

Portage, IN 46368
From: sseder@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:05:05 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Susan Eder

Minneapolis, MN 55416
Exhibit 31(a)

 

Section 302 Certifications 

 

Certifications 

I, Kenneth W. Lowe, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Scripps Networks Interactive, 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. | [Intentionally omitted] * |
|----|---------------------------|

| 4. | [Intentionally omitted] * |
|----|---------------------------|

| 5. | [Intentionally omitted] * |
|----|---------------------------|

 

| Date: March 6, 2018                             |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| BY:                                             |   |   |
| /s/ Kenneth W. Lowe                             |   |   |
| Kenneth W. Lowe                                 |   |   |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |

 

 

*Paragraphs 3 through 5, omitted here, are included in Exhibit 31.A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K filed by Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc. on February 27, 2018.
Order entered June 29, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-01111-CV

CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant

V.

KATHERINE V. HOMAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-02758

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s June 28, 2021 unopposed motion for 

extension of time to file her brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief 

be filed no later than July 2, 2021. Because the brief was first due May 3, 2021, 

we caution that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
Page | of 1

ary Tern a mi 19 AZ

LEGAL PROCESSING Di VISION QALOSIL HTN AUG 3

PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS 4 EC / eH 1 zat
BRANCH As of: August 31, 2011

Received; August 09, 2011
Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: August 31, 2011

Tracking No. 80edc436
Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of
Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services
under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0091
Comment on FR Doe # 2011-19684

Submitter Information

Name: William Mills
Address:
Lakewood, NJ,

General Comment

The government has no right to cause citizens to violate their religious conscience by causing
them to fund abortion in any way. Abortion may be legal but it is murder of a child and immoral.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectlId=0900... 8/31/2011
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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

I, John Roblin, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) of Cover-All Technologies Inc. ("Cover-All"), for the purposes of
section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, certify, that, to my
knowledge, Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Cover-All on Form 10-K/A for
the period ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of Cover-All. This written
statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this statement has been provided
to Cover-All and will be retained by Cover-All and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: August 17, 2004


By: /s/ John Roblin
------------------------------------
Name:   John Roblin
Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
From: lisastech@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:35:23 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Lisa and Donna Stechschulte

Owosso, MI 48867