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



CERTIFICATION



I, Joan P. Platt, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MarketWatch.com, Inc.;



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



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



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



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



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



c)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                   |  |                                       
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------
|Date: May 17, 2004
|                   | 
|By:                |  | /s/    Joan P. Platt                  
|                   |  |                                       
|                   |  | Joan P. Platt, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Core Office Income REIT, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 , as filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:


|    |                                                                                                                      
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(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 Registrant.







/s/ LEO F. WELLS, IIILeo F. Wells, IIIPrincipal Executive OfficerMay 12, 2011/s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMSDouglas P. WilliamsPrincipal Financial OfficerMay 12, 2011
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Renfrew,
Inc. for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2005, I, Zak W. Elgamal, Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Renfrew, Inc. hereby certify 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 my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
          31, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the period ended March 31, 2005, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Renfrew, Inc.

Dated:  May 16, 2005

RENFREW, INC.


By: /s/ Zak W. Elgamal
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
#### Kwan H. Chung, Appellant, v Physicians Reciprocal Insurers, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[635 NYS2d 386]

—Judgment reversed on the law without costs, cross motion denied, motion granted and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, declaring that defendant has no duty to defend plaintiff, Kwan H. Chung, M.D., in the underlying action. The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and, "[i]f the complaint contains any facts or allegations which bring the claim even potentially within the protection purchased, the insurer is obligated to defend” *(Technicon Elees. Corp. v American Home Assur. Co.,*74 NY2d 66, 73, *rearg denied*74 NY2d 893). Where an insurer seeks to rely upon an exclusion clause to deny coverage, the insurer must demonstrate "that the 'allegations of the complaint cast that pleading solely and entirely within the policy exclusions, and, further, that the allegations, *in toto,*are subject to no other interpretation’ ” *(Technicon Elees. Corp. v American Home Assur. Co., supra,*at 73-74, quoting *International Paper Co. v Continental Cas. Co.,*35 NY2d 322, 325).

The conduct alleged in the underlying complaint can reasonably be construed as falling within the coverage purchased by Dr. Chung, i.e., any claim arising from rendering or failing to render professional services. The allegations of the complaint do not cast the pleading solely within the policy exclusion of "Sexual Acts” and are not " 'subject to no other interpretation’ ” *(Technicon Elees. Corp. v American Home Assur. Co., supra,*at 74). The complaint can reasonably be read as alleging that Dr. Chung was negligent in his professional treatment of plaintiff, which caused her to suffer humiliation, mental anguish and self-loathing. We, therefore, grant judgment declaring that defendant is obligated to provide a defense for Dr. Chung in the underlying action.

All concur except Green, J. P., and Lawton, J., who dissent and vote to affirm for reasons stated in decision at Supreme *908Court, Galloway, J. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—Declaratory Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.
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 Desert Health Products, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 operation
            of the Company.

By: /s/ Johnny Shannon
    ------------------
Johnny Shannon             Date: March 30, 2004
Chief Financial Officer


Exhibit 32.2 - Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002


                                                                               1
Exhibit







Exhibit 4.15



AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO WARRANT AGREEMENT 


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 to WARRANT AGREEMENT is made this 21st day of July, 2016, by and between Hercules Capital, Inc., a Maryland corporation f/k/a Hercules Technology Growth Capital, Inc. (“Warrantholder”) and Alimera Sciences, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”).  
WHEREAS, Warrantholder is the holder of that certain Warrant Agreement dated April 24, 2014 between Warrantholder and the Company, as amended (the “Warrant”); and 
WHEREAS, in connection with a certain Waiver of even date herewith, the parties hereto desire to further amend the Warrant in the manner set forth below;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1.Warrant Amendments.      The Warrant is hereby amended as follows, such amendments to be effective as of the date hereof:
(a)    Exercise Price.  The definition of Exercise Price in Section 1(a) of the Warrant is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following new definition substituted therefor: 
“ “Exercise Price” means $1.39, subject to adjustment from time to time in accordance with the provisions of this Warrant.”
(b)    Number of Shares.     Section 1(b) of the Warrant is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following new Section 1(b) substituted therefor:
“(b) Number of Shares.    This Warrant shall be exercisable for 1,258,993 shares of Common Stock, subject to adjustment from time to time in accordance with the provisions of this Warrant.”
2.    Corporate Authority.  The execution and delivery by the Company of this Amendment No. 3 has been duly authorized by all necessary actions of its Board of Directors and stockholders.
3.     No Other Amendments.    Except as amended hereby, the Warrant shall remain in full force and effect as originally written.
4.    Governing Law.    This Amendment No. 3 shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the internal domestic laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to its principles regarding conflicts of law.
[Signature page follows]
















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 3 to Warrant Agreement as of the date first above written. 


ALIMERA SCIENCES, INC.


By:    /s/ Dan Myers            
Name:    Dan Myers            
Title:    CEO                
    


HERCULES CAPITAL, INC.


By:    /s/ Jennifer Choe        
Name:    Jennifer Choe            
Title:    Assistant General Counsel
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4244 

To amend the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions 

Act of 1994 to include in technical assistance provided by the Community 

Development Financial Institutions Fund resources for non-English 

speaking individuals, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Ms. BUTLER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 to include in technical assistance provided by the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund resources for non-English speaking 

individuals, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Finance 

5 Language Inclusion Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4244 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF RESOURCES FOR NON-ENGLISH 

2 SPEAKING INDIVIDUALS IN TECHNICAL AS3 SISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE COMMUNITY 

4 DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 

5 FUND. 

6 Section 108(c)(1) of the Community Development 

7 Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (12 

8 U.S.C. 4707(c)(1)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘training’’ and inserting ‘‘the 

10 training’’; 

11 (2) by striking ‘‘and development’’ and insert12 ing ‘‘, the development’’; and 

13 (3) by striking ‘‘products.’’ and inserting ‘‘prod14 ucts, and the provision of outreach and resources for 

15 non-English speaking individuals or individuals with 

16 limited English proficiency.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Certificate of Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As adopted pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American Surgical Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), James Longaker, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:
  1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition at the end of the period covered by the Report and result of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
  /s/James Longaker
 James Longaker
 Chief Financial Officer
  November 19, 2010
  This certificate accompanies this Report pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 32.2



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 this Quarterly Report
of East Coast Diversified Corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012, as
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Kayode Aladesuyi, Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer; Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |     |                                                                                                                                                 | 
|----------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: November 19, 2012 | By: | /s/ Kayode Aladesuyi                                                                                                                            | 
|                        |     | Kayode Aladesuyi                                                                                                                                | 
|                        |     | Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer)
        (Principal Accounting Officer)
        East Coast Diversified Corporation |
June 5, 1964

Reap. Dec. 10776.

#### Pluswood Industries *v.*United States,

reappraisement R62/15488.

Reappraisement dismissed April 29, 1964.

Entered at New Orleans, La. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
Case 2:04-cv-02415-GEB-GGH   Document 19    Filed 05/17/05   Page 1 of 1
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1165

___________

Leonard C. Lee, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, *

United States Department of Health * [UNPUBLISHED]

and Human Services, *

*

Appellee, *

*

Vicky Ross-Barsch, Individually and *

in her official capacity as Assistant *

Deputy Director, NCTR; Victor G. *

Attwood, Individually and in his *

official capacity as Deputy Director, *

NCTR; Mary Ann Hutchinson, *

Individually and in her official capacity *

as Personnel Director, NCTR; Dick *

King, Individually and in his official *

capacity as Personnel Specialist, *

NCTR; Kimberly Carter, Individually *

and in her official capacity as Director *

Division of Personnel Operations, *

ORA; George Calvert, Individually *

and in his official capacity as Director, *

Classification Services, FDA, *

*

Defendants. *

___________
1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

-2-

Submitted: December 24, 2004

Filed: January 24, 2005

___________

Before BYE, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Lee appeals the district court’s1

 adverse judgment after a bench trial

in his Title VII action against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human

Services. After carefully reviewing the record, we find no clear error in the district

court’s findings that Lee did not prove race discrimination, retaliation, or harassment.

See Tadlock v. Powell, 291 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review). We

also agree with the court that Lee did not exhaust his administrative remedies on his

claim that supervisors discriminated and retaliated against him by accusing him of

fraud in a worker’s compensation case. See Burkett v. Glickman, 327 F.3d 658, 660

(8th Cir. 2003). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Reportof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Consolidated FinancialStatement Schedule**

The Board of Directors

Witness Systems, Inc.:

Under date of March 16,2006, except as to Note 2, which is as of February 7, 2007, we reported on theconsolidated balance sheets of Witness Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as ofDecember 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cashflows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2005,as contained in the annual report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December31, 2005.  In connection with our auditsof the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also audited therelated consolidated financial statement schedule as listed in the accompanyingindex in this annual report on Form 10-K/A. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company’smanagement.  Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion, suchfinancial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basicconsolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in allmaterial respects, the information set forth therein.

The consolidatedfinancial statements as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and for each of the yearsin the three-year period ended December 31, 2005 have been restated asdiscussed in Note 2.

Atlanta, Georgia

March 16, 2006, except as to Note 2,

which is as of February7, 2007

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7511

In Re: RODNEY H. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-01-231)

Submitted: November 4, 2005 Decided: November 21, 2005

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney H. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rodney H. Williams petitions for writ of mandamus. He

seeks an order directing this court to retract and correct alleged

errors in the opinion issued in United States v. Williams, No. 03-

4148, 2003 WL 21744160 (4th Cir. July 29, 2003) (unpublished). He

further seeks an order directing certain judges that considered his

direct criminal appeal be recused. The mandate in Williams’ appeal

was entered September 10, 2003. As a result, this court is without

jurisdiction over the case. See Johnson v. Bechtel Assoc. Prof’l

Corp., D.C., 801 F.2d 412, 415 (D.C. Cir. 1986); United States v.

DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 144 (2d. Cir. 1981). Mandamus relief is

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief

sought. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn, 860 F.2d 135, 138

(4th Cir. 1988). A court of appeals may issue a writ “for the sole

purpose of protecting the respective jurisdiction” of the court.

Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587

(4th Cir. 1969). Because this court is without jurisdiction over

the appeal and very unlikely to ever regain jurisdiction, there is

no basis upon which to grant the writ. Moreover, assuming this

court had jurisdiction, there is no basis upon which it would enter

an order to itself in order to protect its jurisdiction.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. We

grant Williams’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED