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

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Greg Hildebrand, certify that:

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

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth 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(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 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: October 28, 2004                            By:   /s/ Greg Hildebrand
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Greg Hildebrand
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed December 15 , 2016 . 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 16 - 01432 - CV IN RE RONALD KEVIN P ERRIOTT , Relator Original Proceeding from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F84 - 84710 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Evans, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Lang

- Miers Before the Court is relator’s December 6, 2016 petition for writ of mandamus. Relator was convicted of murder in 1984, this Court affirmed the conviction, and relator is serving a life sentence. In this original proceeding, relator complains that Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre refused to provide him with the cost for obtaining a copy of the transcript of a suppression hearing “A.K.A. Jackson v. Denno Hearing” that relator asserts he needs because he is “reappealing” his conviction. Relator asks the Court to order the district clerk to (1) declare relator indi gent and provide him with “a loan copy” of the transcript for him to use to prepare his new appeal, or (2) explain why the clerk will not release the record. We do not have mandamus jurisdiction over a district clerk unless the clerk is interfering with our appellate jurisdiction. T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE § 22.221(a)

- (b) (West 2004) (court of appeals may only issue writ of mandamus against district and county judges or as necessary to enforce jurisdiction of appellate court); In re Wilkerson , 05

- 16

- 00322

- CV, 2016 WL 1320815, at *1– 2

– (Tex. App.

— Dallas Apr. 5, 2016, orig. proceeding) (citing In re Simpson , 997 S.W.2d 939, 939 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1999, orig. proceeding)). No appeal is pending before the Court and, thus, the clerk’s actions and inactions are not interferin g with the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

161432F.P05 / Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
No. P68/212.

protest 66/72670 (New York).

#### Consolidated International Equipment & Supply Co. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of paper cutters and parts, dedicated for use therewith, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Consolidated International Equipment & Supply Co.,*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 442, C.D. 2671), wherein the court held that the paper cutters and the motors for said paper cutters were separate entities rather than an entirety, the protest was dismissed and the matter remanded for further proceedings to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the separate value of the paper cutters and motors in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. § 2636(d)).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41246

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NARCISCO PACO RIVERA-LAZARO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-03-CR-119-1

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Narcisco Paco Rivera-Lazaro

(Rivera) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rivera

has not responded to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of

counsel’s brief and supplemental brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6806

ROBERT L. MURPHY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK B. BISHOP, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:19-cv-03317-GJH)

Submitted: July 20, 2021 Decided: July 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert L. Murphy seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) 

(explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from 

latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, 

as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-

41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Murphy has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KYLE JAY SAMPSON : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

NORTHWESTERN/KLM AIRLINES and :

MILL RUN TOURS : NO. 02-4340

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is

GRANTED and as the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in

this case in which plaintiff predicates jurisdiction on diversity

of citizenship, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and asserts claims for

breach of contract and negligence based on defendants' alleged

failure to provide plaintiff with a proper airline ticket after

he paid $909 and for which he requests $20,000 in damages, IT IS

FURTHER ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED, without

prejudice to plaintiff to assert a claim in an appropriate state

court.

BY THE COURT:

___________________

JAY C. WALDMAN, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04340-JW Document 2 Filed 07/03/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

:

MARA FLAMM, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, :

: NO. 02-4302

v. :

:

SARNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. and :

JOSHUA SARNER, ESQUIRE and :

LEONARD SARNER, ESQUIRE and :

JODI H. BROWN, M.D. and JOHN :

MATUSAVAGE, :

:

Defendants. :

 :

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF THE SARNER DEFENDANTS

Defendants, Sarner & Associates, P.C.; Joshua Sarner, Esquire; and Leonard Sarner,

Esquire (collectively “the Sarner defendants”), respectfully move this Court to dismiss plaintiff’s

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and for the reasons set forth in the

Sarner defendants' supporting Memorandum of Law, which are incorporated herein by reference

as though set forth at length.

Respectfully submitted,

CHRISTIE, PABARUE, MORTENSEN and YOUNG

A Professional Corporation

By: 

JAMES W. CHRISTIE (I.D. No. 12068)

WILLIAM F. MCDEVITT (I.D. No. 80206)

1880 JFK Blvd., 10th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103/ (215) 587-1678

Attorneys for Defendants, Sarner & Associates, P.C.;

Joshua Sarner, Esquire and Leonard Sarner, Esquire

Dated: March 7, 2005 (“the Sarner Defendants”)

Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SUSAN BARISH : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

SECURITY MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE :

COMPANY OF NEW YORK : NO. 02-4244

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, after a

telephone conference with counsel and by agreement of the

plaintiff, it is hereby ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED

without prejudice.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

J.

Case 2:02-cv-04244-HB Document 3 Filed 07/09/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

TESSEL : 02-3865

FILIPPO : 02-3871

JONES, et al. : 02-3909

HOLMAN, et al. : 02-3918

LAMB : 02-3947

JONES : 02-3956

LARSON : 02-3981

DRENTLAW : 02-4142

DURHAM : 02-4160

SIEGEL, et al. : 02-4178

NELSON, et al. : 02-4202

FOSTER, et al. : 02-4222

SIMINUK, et al. : 02-4251

NITZKO, et al. : 02-4270

MICHALIK, et al. : 02-4888

:

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

Case 2:02-cv-04178-JG Document 2 Filed 07/12/2002 Page 1 of 2
It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Petrese B. Tucker, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04178-JG Document 2 Filed 07/12/2002 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL, : NO. 2:02-cv-02746-JRP

Plaintiff :

:

VS. :

:

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, et al., :

Defendants :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 7th day of July, 2003, upon consideration

of the Motion to Compel of Plaintiff Chester County Hospital (“CCH”)

(Doc. No. 62) and the Response of Defendant Independence Blue Cross

(“IBC”), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. With respect to CCH’s request for documents concerning

IBC’s financial performance in states and territories other than

Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware:

a. IBC shall produce documents reflecting its annual

financial performance in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico; and

b. CCH’s request for documents reflecting IBC’s reasons

for entering or exiting those areas is denied as they bear a highly

attenuated relationship to the case at bar;

2. With respect to the redacted documents, CCH’s motion is

denied without prejudice. Should CCH make a more specific showing

in the future that it is entitled to the redacted portions of the

documents at issue, the Court shall reconsider this ruling;

3. With respect to CCH’s request for IBC’s annual budgets

since 1994, the Court shall withhold ruling on this portion of the

motion pending notice from IBC regarding its good faith efforts to

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 86 Filed 07/07/2003 Page 1 of 2
obtain a limited set of documents reflecting its basis for its annual

budgets;

4. With respect to CCH’s request for documents relating to

IBC’s annual employee incentive programs, its motion is denied;

5. With respect to CCH’s request for documents created in the

course of merger discussions with Highmark, its motion is denied as

moot.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________

 CHARLES B. SMITH

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7/7/03 Copy via fax to:

See attached list

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 86 Filed 07/07/2003 Page 2 of 2
AFS-14-160-E

March 13, 2014

 Exemption No. 10952

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0081

Mr. Chad Boyd

Parent of Kaitlyn Boyd

4340 S. Ramona Street

Gilbert, AZ 85297

Dear Mr. Boyd:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter received February 6, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Kaitlyn Boyd for an exemption from § 121.311(b) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Kaitlyn to exceed 

the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured 

by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United 

States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Kaitlyn.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using 

restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security 

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the 
2

petition would not set any new precedents regarding the use of restraint systems by persons 

with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9834;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9834 also 

apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Kaitlyn Boyd an exemption from 

§ 121.311(b). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 

while Kaitlyn is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b). to the 

extent necessary to allow her to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Kaitlyn’s parents

or a caregiver accompanying her. Kaitlyn Boyd may only occupy a passenger seat with no 

passenger seated behind her. In addition, Kaitlyn’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of 

this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours 

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on February 28, 2019, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/S/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
Form 8869

(Rev. December 2020)

Qualified Subchapter S Subsidiary Election

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service 

(Under section 1361(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code) 

▶ Go to www.irs.gov/Form8869 for instructions and the latest information.

OMB No. 1545-0123

Part I Parent S Corporation Making the Election 

1a Name of parent 

b Number, street, and room or suite no. If a P.O. box, see instructions. 

c City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code

2 Employer identification number (EIN) 

3 Tax year ending (month and day) 

4 Service center where last return was filed 

5 Name and title of officer or legal representative whom the IRS may call for more information 6 Telephone number of officer or legal 

representative

Part II Subsidiary Corporation for Which Election is Made (For additional subsidiaries, see instructions.) 

7a Name of subsidiary 

b Number, street, and room or suite no. If a P.O. box, see instructions. 

c City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code 

8 EIN (if any) 

9 Date incorporated 

10 State of incorporation 

11 Date election is to take effect (month, day, year) (see instructions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ▶

12 Did the subsidiary previously file a federal income tax return? If “Yes,” complete lines 13a, 13b, and 13c . . . . . . . . . ▶ Yes No 

13a Service center where last return was filed 13b Tax year ending date of last 

return (month, day, year) ▶

13c Check type of return filed: Form 1120 

Form 1120-S Other ▶

14 Is this election being made in combination with a section 368(a)(1)(F) reorganization described in Rev. Rul. 2008-18, where the subsidiary was 

an S corporation immediately before the election and a newly formed holding company will be the subsidiary’s parent? . . . . . ▶ Yes No 

15 Was the subsidiary’s last return filed as part of a consolidated return? If “Yes,” complete lines 16a, 16b, and 16c . . . . . . . ▶ Yes No 

16a Name of common parent 16b EIN of common parent 16c Service center where consolidated return was filed 

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this election, including accompanying statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, 

and complete. 

Signature of officer 

of parent corporation ▶ Title ▶ Date ▶

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate instructions. Cat. No. 28755K Form 8869 (Rev. 12-2020)
No. 63013.

Suit 4965.

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. *v.*United States.

affirmed January 9,1959. C.A.D. 701.
No. 59450.

protests 259609-K and 259580-K (New York).

#### Alexanders Dept. Stores, Inc., and Ascot, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of traveling irons similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Greatrex, Limited,*and *J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 79, C. D. 1639), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of EnerTeck  Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  the undersigned certifies,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, 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.





Dated:  April 29, 2004              By:/s/ Dwaine Reese
                                    Dwaine Reese, Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)


Dated:  April 29, 2004              By:/s/ Leon van Kraayenburg
                                    Leon van Kraayenburg,
                                    Principal Financial Officer
# C_2017239EN.01001702.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission

(Case C-338/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - European Commission implementing decision - Notification to the addressee - Subsequent rectification of the print lay-out of the annex - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Delay - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 239/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and M. França, acting as Agents)

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 the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.

1

---