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

CERTIFICATION

I,
Dudley Mendenhall, certify that:

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

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

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

4.     Websense'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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for Websense and have:



5.     Websense's
other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Websense's auditors and the
audit committee of Websense's board of directors:



Date:
February 28, 2008

| |  | By: |  | /s/DUDLEY MENDENHALLDudley Mendenhall Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
No. 60908.

#### Pearlduck, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 214200-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the

merchandise consists of manicure or similar sets which are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Pearlduck, Inc.*v. *United States*(34 Cust. Ct. 73, C. D. 1681), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8219 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.8219

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
 To require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess 
   the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the 
         Lahaina National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Lahaina National Heritage Area Study 
Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
    In this Act:
        (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
    the Interior.
        (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Hawaii.
        (3) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the census-
    designated place of Lahaina in Maui County in the State.
SEC. 3. LAHAINA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA STUDY.
    The Secretary, in coordination with the County of Maui and in 
consultation with State and local historic preservation officers, State 
and local historical societies, State and local tourism offices, and 
other appropriate organizations and governmental agencies, shall carry 
out, in accordance with section 120103(a) of title 54, United States 
Code, a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating 
the study area as a National Heritage Area, to be known as the 
``Lahaina National Heritage Area''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Robert Satterly, *Appellant, v.*Robert Winne and others, *Respondents.*

New trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by Bookes, J.; Westbrook, J., not acting.
November 6, 1961

A.R.D. 137.

#### M. M. DuPouey *v.*United States,

Judgment and decision, dismissing the appeals, and Reap. Dec. 9883, denying rehearing, affirmed.
EXHIBIT 1.1

                       Translated from the Hebrew Original

                            COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES

                            MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION

                                OF METALINK LTD.

                  AMENDED AND RESTATED AS OF FEBRUARY 22, 2010

1.   NAME OF THE COMPANY: METALINK LTD.

2.   THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THE COMPANY HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ARE:

     a) To initiate, set up, found, develop, acquire, hold, operate and manage a
business of development, planning, production and marketing of transmission
devices in various communications systems.

     b) Without prejudice to or derogating from that stated above, the Company
shall be a corporation, fit for any right, obligation and legal act, and shall
be permitted and entitled to engage in any business or matter as the company
shall resolve upon.

3.   THE LIABILITY OF THE MEMBERS: The liability of the members is limited.

4.   SHARE CAPITAL:

     a) The share capital of the company is NIS 5,000,000 divided into 5,000,000
Ordinary A Shares of a nominal value of NIS 1.0 each.

<PAGE>

     b) The rights attached to the shares of the Company of any class may be
modified pursuant to the manner and the form determined in the Articles of
Association of the Company, provided that the holders of all the classes of
shares whose rights are sought to be modified shall pass a special resolution in
respect of the said modification.

     c) Permission is reserved to the Company to add and to remove shares of the
Company by passing a special resolution and to remove shares of any class,
including shares with various, special, deferred and additional rights, provided
that the removal of shares which may prejudice or derogate from the rights
attached to the shares shall require a special resolution passed by the holders
of all the classes of shares.

     d) That stated in section (b) above and in this section may be modified by
the passing of a special resolution, provided that the holders of all the
classes of existing shares shall pass a special resolution concerning the said
modification.

     e) The Company shall be entitled to become a public company and to revert
to being a private company, in accordance with the provisions of the law which
shall exist at the time that such a change shall be discussed.

5.   CHANGING THE MEMORANDUM

It is possible to change this Memorandum of Understanding by a shareholders
resolution adopted in a General Meeting of the Company by a simple majority of
shareholders who are entitled to vote, in person or represented by proxy.

                                     - 2 -
Case No. 9,105.

#### The MARS.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 150.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

April, 1862.

Prize — Blockade—Papers Thrown Overboard.

Vessel and cargo condemned for an attempt to violate the blockade.

In admiralty.

BETTS, District Judge.

The vessel and cargo in this case were neutral, owned by a British subject residing in Halifax, and were captured as prize on the 5th of February, 1862, within a few miles of Fernandina, in Florida, by the United States steamer Keystone State. The schooner was running directly for that port, with a cargo of salt for Inguana, in the West Indies. When the master found that his vessel was pursued by the public ship, he threw overboard some letters or papers, as did also another of the ship’s company, — the steward, or a passenger on board. The master and owner of the vessel and cargo knew, as did all the crew, that the ports of the Southern states were in a state of blockade. The vessel purported to be to Halifax; the vessel was kept purposely wide of the true course for that port, under the suggestion that she designed to speak a blockading vessel and inquire if the blockade was still maintained. It is manifest, on the papers taken with the schooner and the preparatory proofs, that the outward and return voyages were planned and set out on foot with intent to evade the blockade and run a cargo of salt into some port of the enemy. Wheat. Mar. Capt. c. 6; Halleck, Int. Law, c. 23. This is so palpable and irrefragable that no appearance or claim has been interposed in behalf of any claimant, but the proceedings have been suffered to go to a decree without contestation.

The interlocutory decree of condemnation having been regularly taken by default against the vessel and cargo, final judgment of condemnation and sale of the vessel and cargo is ordered accordingly.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RENE LUNA-MARADIAGA, aka Rene

Antonio Luna-Maradiaga,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Nos. 09-10452

 09-10453

D.C. Nos. 4:08-cr-01066-DCB

 4:08-cr-50090-DCB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Rene Luna-Maradiaga appeals from the 92-

month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry

after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and from the 21-month sentence

FILED

FEB 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-10452 & 09-10453

imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Luna-Maradiaga’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court abused

its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance of the sentencing and

disposition hearing. The district court did not abuse its discretion, as it granted

numerous other continuance requests and Luna-Maradiaga fails to demonstrate any

prejudice arising from the denial. See Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964);

United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir. 1985), amended by 764 F.2d

675 (9th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Wills, 88 F.3d 704, 711 (9th Cir.

1996). 

AFFIRMED.
Well Depth 6000 ft

Casing Size 6 inches

Atm. Pressure 14.7 psia

Casing Volume = 1178 ft3

Low End Pressure

(psig)

High End Pressure

(psig)

Average Pressure

(psig)

Average Gas

Volume (scf)

Low End Gas

Volume (scf)

High End Gas

Volume (scf) % Erro

0 25 13 2180 1178 3182 46.0% 

25 60 43 4584 3182 5987 30.6% 60 110 85 7990 5987 9994 25.1% 

110 200 155 13600 9994 17207 26.5% 

Total Unloading 

Reporting Unlo

% Repo

% of Wells 

Minimum Range: 5
Source:

461,388 http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrosystem/us_table.html

297,371 http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrosystem/us_table.html

64.5%41.3% US Inventory

2% EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2009‐0923‐1005‐7, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart‐W

2,456

67,739

Average Total

Emissions (scf)

Total High End

Emissions (scf)

52,870,597 77,167,746

104,754,894 136,804,031117,394,659 146,831,635114,209,619 144,495,021

389,229,769 505,298,434

Total Error % = 29.820%
Pressure Wells (2009) Pressure Scaled (Unloading) Source: HPD

5 700 5 3338

10 593 10 2828

15 838 15 3996

20 1341 20 6395

25 1099 25 5241

30 1331 30 6347

35 762 35 3634

40 565 40 2694

45 726 45 3462

50 452 50 2155

55 664 55 3166

60 292 60 1392

65 723 65 3448

70 245 70 1168

75 345 75 1645

80 221 80 1054

85 529 85 2523

90 133 90 634

95 221 95 1054

100 135 100 644

105 443 105 2113

110 86 110 410

115 209 115 997

120 77 120 367

125 256 125 1221

130 87 130 415

135 132 135 629

140 62 140 296

145 123 145 587

150 30 150 143

155 206 155 982

160 45 160 215

165 129 165 615

170 31 170 148

175 84 175 401

180 54 180 258

185 123 185 587

190 40 190 191

195 73 195 348

200+ 2765

Listed: 14,205

Reported: 67,739 67,739

Scaling Factor: 4.769
DI Database
October 6, 1949

No. 53615.

protest 129255-K.

#### W. Stuart Smith *v.*United States,

C. D. 1182. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
#### Kitz Corp., Plaintiff, v Transcon Shipping Specialists, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. J&J Air Freight Trucking Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

[634 NYS2d 75]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.) entered July 27, 1994, which, to the extent appealed from, denied third-party defendant-appellant J&J Air Freight Trucking Co.’s motion for partial summary judgment declaring that its liability, if any, is contractually limited to $50, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A party that is a stranger to a contract of carriage is not bound by limitations of liability in that contract *(cf., Abdul**262*Haq v Pakistan Inti. Airlines,*101 Misc 2d 213, 214). No party had authority as an agent or otherwise to bind defendant to a limitation of J&J’s liability. Nor is there evidence of any prior dealing between J&J and defendant and third-party plaintiff. Accordingly, summary judgment was properly denied to J&J. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
(Reap. Dec. 10155)

#### Innocenti Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 2338.

(Decided January 30, 1962)

*Siegel, Mandell<& Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*William, H. Orriclc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The above-enumerated appeal for a reap-praisement presents for determination the proper value for dutiable *532purposes of certain motorscooters and parts thereof, exported from Italy.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed that, at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Italy for home consumption or for export to the United States nor was it freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the United States for domestic consumption. It was further stipulated and agreed that the cost of production of said merchandise is as follows:

> For Model 125/LI — Lira 108,010.00, plus extras, as invoiced, packed.

> For Model 150/LI — Lira 121,375.00, plus extras, as invoiced, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Elderwatch, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allan Weiss, Principal Accounting 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:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



By/s/ Allan Weiss

Allan Weiss

Principal Accounting Officer



Date:  December 6, 2005
EX. 4.27 Amendment - Tuchman






AMENDING AGREEMENT NO. 1
THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT made effective as of the 12th day of March, 2015.
BETWEEN:
ONCOYLYTICS BIOTECH (U.S.), INC.,
("OBUS")
- and -
ALAN J. TUCHMAN, M.D.
(the "Employee")
WHEREAS the Employee is an officer of OBUS whose terms of employment are set forth in the Executive Employment Agreement ("Employment Agreement") dated effective September 27, 2012;
AND WHEREAS OBUS and the Employee wish to amend the Employment Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Amending Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:
Section 1 – Amendments


The Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing Section 3(1) with the following:


“Commencing January 1, 2015, OBUS shall pay to the Employee a salary of ONE HUNDRED FORTY-SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-NINE DOLLARS AND THIRTY-SEVEN CENTS ($146,669.37) U.S. DOLLARS per annum, exclusive of bonuses, benefits and other compensation, payable in equal installments of SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED ELEVEN DOLLARS AND TWENTY-TWO CENTS ($6,111.22) U.S. DOLLARS on the 15th and last day of each month.”


   


Section 2 – Effective Date


(1)    This Amending Agreement shall be effective from and after January 1, 2015.


(2)    In all other respects the parties confirm that the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.
	
				
	 
	 
	ONCOLYTICS BIOTECH (U.S.), INC.



	Per:
	/s/ Mary Ann Dillahunty

	 
	 
	 
	Mary Ann Dillahunty
President

	 
	 
	Per:
	/s/ Kirk Look

	 
	 
	 
	Kirk Look
Chief Financial Officer






	
			
	/s/ Margaret Kowalczewski
	 
	

/s/ Alan J. Tuchman

	WITNESS
	 
	ALAN J. TUCHMAN, M.D.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GTx, 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     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):
    /s/ Mitchell S. Steiner

Mitchell S. Steiner, M.D., F.A.C.S.Chief Executive Officer andVice-Chairman of the Board of Directors
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





The undersigned, Terence Yap, the Chief Financial Officer of CHINA SECURITY & SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 5th day of
December 2008.



/s/ Terence Yap



Terence Yap

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and will be retained by China Security & Surveillance Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Form 10-Qof Frederick County Bancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30,2009, I, Martin S. Lapera, President and Chief Executive Officer of FrederickCounty Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of myknowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)   such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2009, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   the information contained in such Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended June 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Frederick CountyBancorp, Inc.

 

 
| /s/ Martin S. Lapera                   |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Martin S. Lapera                       |   |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer |   |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0304

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

WILLIAM EDDIE MOODY,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 13, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 6 2021

08/06/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0304