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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Paul Balsara, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ofHemoSense, 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 theperiod covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 periodspresented in this report; 

 

4. Theregistrant’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 we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused 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 endof 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 fiscalquarter 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,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 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 the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:December 2, 2005
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 quarterly report of Shoe Pavilion, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended April 1, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Dmitry Beinus, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company and I, Neil T. Watanabe, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
 § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

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.

/s/Dmitry BeinusChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                   May 16, 2006

/s/Neil T. WatanabeExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                   May 16, 2006

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

                    The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at                     *Secretary@fmc.gov,*                     or by mail, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, Washington, DC 20573. Comments will be most helpful to the Commission if received within 12 days of the date this notice appears in the                     **Federal Register**                    , and the Commission requests that comments be submitted within 7 days on agreements that request expedited review. Copies of agreements are available through the Commission's website (                    *www.fmc.gov*) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or                     *tradeanalysis@fmc.gov.*

*Agreement No.:*                     201175-007.                

*Agreement Name:*                     Port of NY/NJ Sustainable Services Agreement.                

*Parties:*                     APM Terminals Elizabeth, LLC; Port Liberty Bayonne LLC; Maher Terminals LLC; Port Liberty New York LLC; Port Newark Container Terminal LLC; Red Hook Container Terminal, LLC.                

*Filing Party:*                     Carol Lambos; The Lambos Firm LLP.                

*Synopsis:*                     The Amendment reflects the name changes of member companies GCT Bayonne LP and GCT New York LP to Port Liberty Bayonne LLC and Port Liberty LLC respectively.                

*Proposed Effective Date:*                     10/27/2023.                

*Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/​FMC.Agreements.Web/​Public/​AgreementHistory/​8136.*

Dated: November 3, 2023.

Carl Savoy,

Federal Register Alternate Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2023-24677 Filed 11-7-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
No. 55158.

#### B. Altman & Co. *v.*United States,

protests 141058-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

RICHARD T. FARREN ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 04-995 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION ) 

SOLUTIONS, INC. ) 

 and ) 

TRANSUNION, LLC ) 

 and ) 

ANDERSON FINANCIAL NETWORK, INC. ) 

 and ) 

GMAC ) 

 and ) 

RJM ACQUISITIONS FUNDING, LLC ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 )

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF STIPULATED FACTS

The facts listed as stipulated below are the only facts on which the parties agreed 

in their summary judgment briefing to this Court. (See RJM Motion for Summary 

Judgment and Plaintiff’s Opposition at ¶¶ 3, 5, 9, 10, 12). Indeed, it was only Plaintiff 

who admitted certain facts as articulate by Defendant RJM Acquisitions Funding, LLC 

(“RJM”). RJM has not agreed to any of Plaintiff’s facts. Plaintiff’s counsel sent e-mail 

correspondence to RJM’s counsel requesting whether RJM would stipulate to any of the 

additional facts enumerated by Plaintiff in his response in opposition to RJM’s motion for 

summary judgment, but no response was provide by RJM.

Case 2:04-cv-00995-GP Document 75 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 2
2

AGREED FACTS:

1. RJM received a consumer dispute verification form (“CDV”) from 

Experian on or about July 21, 2003, stating that the Plaintiff had notified 

Experian that he disputed the RJM collection account on his credit report. 

2. RJM’s representative wrote the RJM account number that corresponded 

with the account referenced in the CDV on the top right hand corner of the 

CDV. 

3. RJM reported back to Experian by forwarding the filled-in CDV back to 

Experian that the account information had been verified as reported. 

4. On or about July 25, 2003, RJM received a CDV from Trans Union 

disputing the accuracy of the RJM collection account as reported by RJM. 

5. First, RJM’s representative wrote the RJM account number that 

corresponded with the account referenced in the CDV on the top right 

hand corner of the CDV. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.

 BY: ____________________________ 

 JAMES A. FRANCIS, ESQUIRE 

MARK D. MAILMAN, ESQUIRE 

JOHN SOUMILAS, ESQUIRE 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 Land Title Building, 19th Floor 

 100 South Broad Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19110 

 (215) 735-8600 

Date: October 7, 2005 

Case 2:04-cv-00995-GP Document 75 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 2
HOW WILL THE EAGLECASHTM

KIOSK HELP ME? 

Enroll in the EagleCashTM program at the

Finance Office and access your 

designated U.S. checking/savings

account 24 hours a day, seven days a

week! 

• Load funds from your designated U.S.

checking or savings account to your

EagleCashTM card.

• Unload funds from your EagleCashTM card to

your designated U.S. checking or saving

account.

• Transfer funds from one EagleCashTM card to

another EagleCashTM card.

• Change your PIN.

• View or print recent EagleCashTM 

transaction history.

• Obtain a printed receipt of the

balance on your EagleCashTM card.

HOW DOES THE KIOSK WORK? 

The Kiosk has a “Smart Card” reader that prompts you for your PIN

and reads the banking information you provided when the card was

issued at the Finance Office. Cardholders select the type of 

transaction they want to perform and the amount of funds to transfer.

The cards are re-valued at the Kiosk and are ready for immediate use.

Funds will be debited/credited to your U.S. designated checking/

savings account. Receipts are available for all transactions.

WHEN IS THE KIOSK AVAILABLE? 

The EagleCashTM Kiosk is available to manage your funds 24 hours a

day, seven days a week.

HOW MUCH MONEY CAN I TRANSFER? 

The local Command establishes the daily withdrawal limit. Please see

the Finance Office for details.

EagleCashTM Kiosk

User’s Guide
IS THERE A FEE TO USE THE KIOSK? 

No! There are no transaction fees associated with the use of the

EagleCashTM card or Kiosk.

HOW WILL THESE TRANSACTIONS APPEAR ON MY

BANK/CREDIT UNION STATEMENT?

Kiosk transactions will be reflected on your checking/saving account

statement and contain the description "US Treas- EagleCash Kiosk"

along with the associated date and amount of the transaction.

HOW DO I KNOW MY CARD WILL WORK 

IN THE KIOSK? 

Your EagleCashTM card will only work in the Kiosk if you enroll at the

Finance Office for this service and provide your bank routing number.

If you insert a card that has not been enrolled, you will be prompted

to go to the Finance Office to enroll. Enrollment is easy and convenient!

WHAT IF MY BANK/CREDIT UNION DOESN’T HONOR

A KIOSK TRANSACTION?

In cases where the transaction is dishonored due to incorrect account

information, the US Dept of Treasury will work with the local Finance

Office to get the banking data corrected. If the transaction is returned

because of insufficient funds, it will be represented up to two more

times, coinciding with military pay dates. You are responsible for any

bank fees due to insufficient funds. In either case, by signing the ACH

Enrollment Authorization, you authorize the US Dept of Treasury to

collect negative funds immediately from your pay.

WHAT IF I MAKE A MISTAKE DURING MY 

TRANSACTION? 

Simply press “Cancel”.

WHAT IF I DON’T AGREE WITH THE BALANCE ON

MY CARD? 

Print a Transaction History Report and contact the Finance Office for

assistance.

FOR MORE DETAILS, CONTACT THE FINANCE

OFFICE.
No. 60754.

#### Murmac Importing Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 247515-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(a)

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT


The Board of Directors
American Honda Finance Corporation

Members of the Board:

We have examined management's assertion about American Honda Finance
Corporation's (the Company's) compliance with the minimum servicing standards
set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America Uniform Single
Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers, as they relate to the servicing of
retail automobile loan contracts, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2001
included in the accompanying management's assertion. The minimum servicing
standards not considered by the Company to be applicable to the servicing of
retail automobile loans include procedures 2, 3 and 4 of section I - Custodial
Bank Accounts, procedures 1, 2, 3 and 4 of section III - Disbursements and
procedures 2, 3 and 4 of section V - Mortgage Loan Accounting. Management is
responsible for the Company's compliance with the applicable minimum servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, including
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

Our examination disclosed the following material noncompliance with insurance
requirements applicable to the Company as of and for the year ended March 31,
2001. The Company was not in compliance with minimum servicing standards for
maintaining an errors and omissions policy effective during the year ended March
31, 2001.

In our opinion, except for the material noncompliance described in the third
paragraph, American Honda Finance Corporation has complied, in all material
respects, with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the
year ended March 31, 2001.


/s/ KPMG LLP


September 25, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 : CIVIL ACTION NOS.

SMYTHE : 02-4185

WALLACE : 02-4186

COLLINS : 02-4230

WOLFSON : 02-4253

STARMAN : 02-4261

MAXWELL : 02-4275

CLAUNCH : 02-4309

FONOONI : 02-4326

:

vs. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, ET AL :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th 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.

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:

 

JOHN R. PADOVA, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04186-JP Document 2 Filed 07/08/2002 Page 1 of 2
Civ. 13 (8/80)

Case 2:02-cv-04186-JP Document 2 Filed 07/08/2002 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cr-00663-SD Document 57 Filed 03/20/14 Page 1of3 

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. CRIMINAL NO. 04-663-02 

SANTOS DIAZ 

a/k/a 11Edgar Maldonado-Hernandez" 

ORDER 

AND NOW, this J d~ day of , 2014. upon 

consideration of the Government's Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Quash the Arrest Warrant, 

it is hereby 

ORDERED 

that Indictment No. 04-663-02, as it relates to the above-captioned defendant, is dismissed without 

prejudice. It is further ordered that the warrant issued for the arrest of defendant is hereby 

QUASHED. 

BY THE COURT: 

~Ws~WARTOALZELL Judge, United States District Court 

Case 2:04-cr-00663-SD Document 58 Filed 03/20/14 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

MIRIAN SCHVOM, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF

ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO.

2270,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ANDREW BEHREND, 

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

ROBERT K. ALDERMAN,

 Plainitff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

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

CYNTHIA B. GOEPEL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MCNEIL-PPC, INC. 

 Defendant.

 

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4093

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4105

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4149

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4180

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

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4197

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6th day of March, 2003, it is hereby ORDERED that counsel shall

report to the court by a single jointly signed submission stating their respective positions regarding the

Case 2:02-cv-04197-MK Document 9 Filed 03/06/2003 Page 1 of 2
2

status of the above captioned matter by April 6, 2003. Counsel are requested to discuss settlement with

each other and their respective clients before reporting to the court.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________

MARVIN KATZ, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04197-MK Document 9 Filed 03/06/2003 Page 2 of 2
# C_2015294EN.01007701.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/77

---

Action brought on 25 June 2015 — Windrush Aka v OHIM — Dammers (The Specials)

(Case T-336/15)

(2015/C 294/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Windrush Aka LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and S. Britton, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jerry Dammers (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘The Specials’ — Community trade mark No 3 725 082

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for revocation

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2015 in Case R 1412/2014-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 15(1) and 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 15(1) and 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case No. 5,249.

#### GARRETSON v. CLARK et al.

[17 Blatchf. 256.] 1

Circuit Court, N. D. New York.

Oct. 30, 1879.

Practice in Equity — Costs — Solicitor’s Fee for Overruled Exception to Master’s Report.

An allowance is not proper, in a bill of costs, in this court, of a solicitor’s fee for an overruled exception to a master’s report, because, under rule 84, in equity, no standing rule has ever been made by this court on the subject, and because no allowance for such fee is found in section 824 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

[This was a bill in equity by Oliver S. Gar-retson. against Charles B. Clark and others for the alleged infringement of certain patents. See Cases Nos. 5,248 and 5,250.]

James A. Allen, for plaintiff.

F. A. Macomber, for defendants.

BLATCHFORD, Circuit Judge.

In this case the court overruled all the exceptions taken by the plaintiff to the master’s report, and awarded costs to the defendants for all proceedings upon the reference to the master *45and subsequent thereto. [Case No. 5,248.] In the bill of costs presented by the defendants to the clerk for taxation, there was a charge of $25 for each of the exceptions overruled. The clerk declined to tax such charge. The defendants now move for an order directing the clerk to allow and tax, as a part of the defendants’ costs, the sum of $25 for each of said exceptions, or such other sum therefor as shall seem reasonable and just.

In March, 1842, the supreme court promulgated rule 84 of the rules of practice for the courts of equity of the United States, in the following words: “And in order to prevent exceptions to reports from being filed for frivolous causes, or for mere delay, the party whose exceptions are overruled shall, for every exception overruled, pay costs to the other party, and for every exception allowed shall be entitled to costs, the costs to be fixed in each case by the court, by a standing rule of the circuit court.” No standing rule of this court has ever been made on this subject. There is no authority for this court to impose any costs in this case, under rule 84, except in pursuance of a standing rule, previously made. Moreover, under section 823 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which is a reenactment of a provision in section 1 of the act of February 2G, 1853 (10 Stat. 161), no other compensation to attorneys and solicitors in the United States courts can be taxed and allowed against a party to a cause than that prescribed by statute. No specific allowance of a solicitor’s fee in respect of exceptions overruled is prescribed by statute, and, therefore, none can be allowed. The only fees or compensation which can be taxed in this case in favor of the defendants are what are found specifically set forth in section 824 of the Revised Statutes or some other statutory provision. The motion is, therefore, denied.