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

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Robert P. Hughes, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TenFold Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 my
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 my
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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(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.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|                                          
|/s/ Robert P. Hughes                      
|Robert P. Hughes                          
|Chief Financial Officer and Chief of Staff
|                                          
|May 15, 2006
Exhibit
32.1


In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alloy Steel International,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gene
Kostecki, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, that:
 
 (1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(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:
      December 23, 2009
              By:
              /s/Gene KosteckiGene
      KosteckiChief
      Executive Officer
# C_2017392EN.01000702.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 September 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili — Malta) — Malta Dental Technologists Association, John Salomone Reynaud v Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina

(Case C-125/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Dental technologists - Conditions governing the practice of the profession in the host Member State - Requirement for the compulsory intermediation of a dental practitioner - Application of that requirement in the case of clinical dental technologists pursuing their profession in the home Member State - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Restriction - Justification - Public interest objective of ensuring the protection of public health - Proportionality))

(2017/C 392/10)

Language of the case: Maltese

Referring court

Referring court

Prim’Awla tal-Qorti Ċivili

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Malta Dental Technologists Association, John Salomone Reynaud

Applicants:

Defendants: Superintendent tas-Saħħa Pubblika, Kunsill tal-Professjonijiet Kumplimentari għall-Mediċina

Defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU, and Article 4(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013, must be interpreted to the effect that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which stipulates that the activities of a dental technologist must be pursued in collaboration with a dental practitioner, inasmuch as that requirement is applicable, in accordance with that legislation, to clinical dental technologists who obtained their professional qualifications in another Member State and who wish to pursue their profession in the first Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.

1

---
EX-10.22





 Exhibit 10.22 

Spousal Consent 
 The
undersigned, Zhiqing LV, a People’s Republic of China (“China” or the “PRC”) citizen with PRC Identification Card No.: 330681198609225028, is the lawful spouse of Ruixin ZHOU, a PRC citizen with PRC Identification Card No.:
331004198302200614. I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agree to the execution of the following documents (hereinafter referred to as the “Transaction Documents”) by Ruixin ZHOU on December 23, 2014, and the
disposal of the equity interests of Hangzhou Tuya Technology Co., Ltd. (“Hangzhou Tuya”) held by Ruixin ZHOU and registered in his/her name according to the following documents: 

 

	 	(1)	 The Equity Interest Pledge Agreement entered into with Hangzhou Aixiangji Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as the “WFOE”) and Hangzhou Tuya; 


  

	 	(2)	 The Exclusive Option Agreement entered into with the WFOE and Hangzhou Tuya; and 



 

	 	(3)	 The Power of Attorney executed by Ruixin ZHOU. 



I hereby undertake not to make any assertions in connection with the equity interests of Hangzhou Tuya which are held by Ruixin ZHOU. I hereby
further confirm that Ruixin ZHOU can perform the Transaction Documents and further amend or terminate the Transaction Documents without the authorization or consent from me. 

I hereby undertake to execute all necessary documents and take all necessary actions to ensure appropriate performance of the Transaction
Documents (as may be amended from time to time). 












 I hereby agree and undertake that if I obtain any equity interests of Hangzhou Tuya which
are held by Ruixin ZHOU for any reasons, I shall be bound by the Transaction Documents and the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement entered into between the WFOE and Hangzhou Tuya as of December 23, 2014 (the “Exclusive
Business Cooperation Agreement”) (as may be amended from time to time) and comply with the obligations thereunder as a shareholder of Hangzhou Tuya. For this purpose, upon the WFOE’s request, I shall sign a series of written documents
in substantially the same format and content as the Transaction Documents and the Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement (as may be amended from time to time). 












 Hereby Confirm. 

 

			
	/s/ Zhiqing LV
	Name:	 	Zhiqing LV
	Date:	 	 December 23, 2014
No. 55842.

protests 159676-K, etc. (New York).

#### W. A. Cleary Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lecithin similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *C. J. Tower & Sons*(38 C. C. P. A. 131, C. A. D. 450), the claim of the plaintiff- whs sustained.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Todd Myers, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of SGX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely 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 recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 30, 2007/s/ Todd Myers
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

RAYFORD KNIGHT, a/k/a Cherokee, a/k/a Chief, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. 

(1:93-cr-00022-BEL-1) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Rayford Knight, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Rayford Knight seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his “Motion to Enforce Judgment of Termination of 

Charges Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361.” We dismiss the appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not 

timely filed. 

The district court entered its judgment on April 14, 

2008. Knight’s notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on 

January 27, 2009.∗

 Thus, Knight’s notice of appeal was filed 

well beyond the appeal period established by Rule 4 of the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Because Knight failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal, we dismiss the appeal. Knight’s motion for default 

judgment is denied. 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. 

DISMISSED

 ∗

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date 

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could 

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to 

the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 

U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
Before the Third Division,

October 27, 1955

No. 59391.

protests 121127-K, etc. (New York).

#### Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc. *v.*United States,

*286Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. R. *C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JULIANNE MCGUIRE

v.

JENNIFER EGGLESTON, et al.

: CIVIL ACTION 

:

: NO. 02-CV-4074

:

:

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of August, 2004, counsel for Plaintiff having reported that

the issues in the above-captioned action have been settled, and pursuant to the provisions of Rule

41.1(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, it is ORDERED that the above-captioned

action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to agreement of counsel and without costs.

BY THE COURT:

 

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04074-BWK Document 10 Filed 08/16/2004 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:04-cv-04063-RK Document 57 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 1
# C_2018301EN.01000401.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2018 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-626/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Landfill of waste - Directive 1999/31/EC - Existing landfill sites - Article 14 - Definite decision on whether or not operations may continue - Article 13 - Closure procedures - Judgment of the Court declaring a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Penalty payment and lump sum))

(2018/C 301/04)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 25 April 2013, Commission v Slovakia (C-331/11, not published, EU:C:2013:271), the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 25 April 2013, Commission v Slovakia (C-331/11, not published, EU:C:2013:271), the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

| 2. | Orders that if the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment the Slovak Republic must pay the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 5 000 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 25 April 2013, Commission v Slovakia (C-331/11, not published, EU:C:2013:271), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 25 April 2013, Commission v Slovakia (C-331/11, not published, EU:C:2013:271), has been complied with in full; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that if the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment the Slovak Republic must pay the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 5 000 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 25 April 2013, Commission v Slovakia (C-331/11, not published, EU:C:2013:271), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 25 April 2013, Commission v Slovakia (C-331/11, not published, EU:C:2013:271), has been complied with in full;

| 3. | Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 1 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 1 000 000;

| 4. | Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John D. Hellmann, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. for the period ended April 3, 2004; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 includedin this quarterly 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by others within that entity, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of April 3, 2004, based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) 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 mostrecent 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 ofinternal 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’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 17, 2004
IC 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1165 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2017 

Referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the medical center of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Huntington, West Virginia, as the 

Hershel ‘‘Woody’’ Williams VA Medical Center. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

S 1165 RFH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF HERSHEL ‘‘WOODY’’ WIL2 LIAMS VA MEDICAL CENTER IN HUNTINGTON, 

3 WEST VIRGINIA. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The medical center of the De5 partment of Veterans Affairs in Huntington, West Vir6 ginia, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act 

7 be known and designated as the ‘‘Hershel ‘Woody’ Wil8 liams VA Medical Center’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law, regula10 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

11 States to the medical center referred to in subsection (a) 

12 shall be considered to be a reference to the Hershel 

13 ‘‘Woody’’ Williams VA Medical Center. 

Passed the Senate September 7, 2017. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
# Cover 

# Change Log

# Overview

# Rpt Principles and Assumptions

&"Arial,Bold"DRAFT/PRE-DECISIONAL	

# Core FS Pre-Built Reports List

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for-agencies/circulars/https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/dms/resources/debt-management-governmentwide-reports.htmlhttps://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-1099-c

# Status of Funding

# Obligation Status

# AP Invoice Status

# Reimbursable Agreement Status

# Reimbursable Agreement Analysis

# Receivable Status

# Dunning Notice

# Transaction Detail

# Trial Balance

# image1.png

# image2.png
# C_2017402EN.01000701.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 October 2017 — Wolf Oil Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), SCT Lubricants UAB

(Case C-437/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CHEMPIOIL - Earlier figurative mark CHAMPION - Opposition dismissed))

(2017/C 402/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Wolf Oil Corp. (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, advocaten)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent), SCT Lubricants UAB (represented by: S. Labesius, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Wolf Oil Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wolf Oil Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.

1

---