alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Spectrum Realty, 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 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 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; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting;
 5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
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;
andb)
    
    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:  November 13, 2008
    By:
    /s/ G. Anthony EppolitoG. Anthony EppolitoChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1287 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1287

To amend the definition of independent student for purposes of the need 
 analysis in the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include older adopted 
                               students.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 22, 2005

  Mr. Coleman (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the definition of independent student for purposes of the need 
 analysis in the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include older adopted 
                               students.

    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 ``Fostering Adoption to Further 
Student Achievement Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO INDEPENDENT STUDENT.

    Section 480(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087vv(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(8) was adopted from the foster care system when the 
        individual was 13 years of age or older.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

 

I, Michael R. Garone, certify that:

 

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Immunomedics, Inc.; and

 

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.

 

Date:  September 18, 2017

 
| /s/  Michael   R. Garone                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael R. Garone                                      |   |
| Principal Executive   Officer, Vice President, Finance |   |
| and Chief Financial   Officer                          |   |

 

----
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-88918, 333-65912, 333-76633, 333-76635, 333-75763, 33-56693, 33-69840, and
33-31556 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 11, 2004, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Smith International, Inc. and subsidiaries
as of and for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 (which report expresses
an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to (i) the
adoption of a new accounting principle and (ii) the application of procedures
relating to certain other revisions and disclosures of financial statement
amounts related to the 2001 consolidated financial statements that were audited
by other auditors who have ceased operations and for which we have expressed no
opinion or other form of assurance other than with respect to such revisions and
disclosures) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Smith
International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Houston, Texas
March 11, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50789

c/w No. 13-50798

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO GRANJENO-ESPANOL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-406-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Granjeno-Espanol appeals the 46-month within-guidelines 

sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry into the United 

States after deportation. He argues that the sentence is substantively 

unreasonable and greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). He asserts that the Guidelines failed to account for his personal 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 3, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50789 Document: 00512584658 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2014
No. 13-50789

c/w No. 13-50798

history and circumstances, including that he supports his five children and his 

two elderly parents, that he has mainly lived a law abiding life, and that he 

has only one prior conviction for which he has served his sentence. He contends 

that U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 double counted his prior conviction and overstated the 

seriousness of his criminal history. He maintains that the presumption of 

reasonableness should not apply to his sentence because § 2L1.2 is not 

supported by empirical data, but acknowledges that the argument is foreclosed 

by United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009).

Although Granjeno-Espanol acknowledges that this court applies plain 

error review when a defendant fails to object to the reasonableness of the 

sentence, he contends that the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion.

Because he did not object to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence in 

the district court, review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 

505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

The district court considered Granjeno-Espanol’s request for a 

downward variance and ultimately determined that a sentence at the bottom 

of the advisory guidelines range was appropriate under the circumstances and 

the § 3553(a) factors. Granjeno-Espanol’s arguments that that § 2L1.2 lacks 

an empirical basis, double counts his criminal history, and overstates the 

seriousness of his criminal history, and that the Guidelines did not take into 

account his personal history and characteristics, are insufficient to rebut the 

presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 

554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th 

Cir. 2008). Therefore, Granjeno-Espanol has failed to show that his 46-month 

within-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable, and there is no 

reversible plain error. 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-50789 Document: 00512584658 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2014
Docket No: FAA-2015-1427 Dir ID: 2013-NM-203-AD
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1254 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1254

           To suspend temporarily the duty on nitrocellulose.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 16, 2005

Mrs. Dole introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
        referred to the Committee on FinanceYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on nitrocellulose.

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

SECTION 1. NITROCELLULOSE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.39.13      Cellulose nitrate   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (nitrocellulose,                                                   31/2009
                         including
                         collodions)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3912.20.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Willie C. HENRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1067.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1978.

Alan H. Schreiber, Public Defender and Peter LaPorte, Asst. Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Basil S. Diamond, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ALDERMAN, Chief Judge.

The defendant appeals his convictions for sexual battery and false imprisonment. Three points have been raised, but only one, involving the admission of “Williams Rule” evidence, has merit and requires reversal.

The defendant was charged with abducting a young woman as she was leaving a nightclub known as the Embassy Club, and then raping her. Over defendant’s objection, another young woman was allowed to testify that he had raped her about three weeks after the offenses for which he was being tried. We hold that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of the second rape victim. Evidence of collateral crimes may not be admitted if the effect is merely to show bad character or a propensity to commit crime on the part of the defendant. *Williams v. State,*110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). In this case there is no more than a very general similarity between the two crimes. Two women were, on different occasions, raped by a man with whom they made contact at or near the Embassy Club. There the similarity between the two incidents virtually ends.

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1386 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1386

  To exclude from consideration as income certain payments under the 
                   national flood insurance program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 13, 2005

 Mr. Martinez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To exclude from consideration as income certain payments under the 
                   national flood insurance program.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS UNDER NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE 
              PROGRAM.

    Chapter I of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
4011 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
section:

``SEC. 1324. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS.

    ``Assistance provided under a program under this title for flood 
mitigation activities (including any assistance provided under the 
mitigation pilot program under section 1361A, any assistance provided 
under the mitigation assistance program under section 1366, and any 
funding provided under section 1323) with respect to a property shall 
not be considered income or a resource of the owner (or any lessee or 
user) of the property when determining eligibility for or benefit 
levels under any income assistance or resource-tested program that is 
funded in whole or in part by an agency of the United States or by 
appropriated funds of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO andCFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Real Estate Associates Limited VII (the"Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D.Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, andStephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of thePartnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of his knowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Charles Lynn SMITH v. STATE.

6 Div. 557.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 20, 1977.

William W. Rogers, Bessemer, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and James L. O’Kelley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BOWEN W. SIMMONS, Retired Circuit Judge.

Appellant, an indigent here and at nisi prius, entered a plea of not guilty to an indictment for robbery. The jury convicted him and fixed punishment at thirty years imprisonment. A proper judgment is an incident of this appeal.

*80I

Appellant in his brief asserts that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Ala.Const., Art. I, § 6 (1901); U.S.Const., Amend. VI.

We fail to find in the record any motion or other proceeding which indicates that the point was raised at nisi prius in this case. The record fails to show a ruling of the Court. On appeal, this Court is limited to matters properly raised in the trial court. *Phillips v. State,*47 Ala.App. 688, 260 So.2d 418(2).

We do find that appellant’s brief shows that a petition for habeas corpus was filed and denied by the trial judge. No appeal was taken to test the ruling of the Court. Facts asserted in the brief of appellant or appellee, which cannot be ascertained from the record will not be reviewed. *Lucy v. State,*Ala.Cr.App., 340 So.2d 840(3); cert. den. Ala., 340 So.2d 847.

II

Appellant also asserts that the trial ?ourt committed reversible error in receiving into evidence defendant’s inculpatory statement “ . ... WHICH WAS PROCURED BY FORCE, COERCION, THREATS, PERSONAL INJURY . . ” and because accused was not advised “ . . . OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT MORE COMMONLY REFERED (sic) TO AS THE MIRANDA WARNINGS.”

We have examined the record and find that defendant’s rights were observed and protected by the Court. The hearing on the voluntariness of the statement was held outside the presence of the jury. Evidence was adduced at the hearing which supported the State’s contention that the defendant was given his *Miranda*warnings, and that the statement was voluntary. Defendant testified to the contrary. The Court decided the issue in favor of the State. We will not disturb its ruling. The same evidence in substance was adduced before the jury. However, defendant did not take the stand before the jury. The hearing and proceedings before the jury comported with the requirements of the law. *Wallace*v. *State,*290 Ala. 201, 275 So.2d 634.

The judgment is affirmed.

The foregoing opinion was prepared by the Honorable BOWEN W. SIMMONS, a Retired Circuit Judge, serving as a Judge of this Court, under the provisions of § 6.10, of the new Judicial Article (Constitutional Amendment No. 328); his opinion is hereby adopted as that of the Court.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
LADD Furniture, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
33-53341, 333-3129, 333-19565, and 333-19539) on Form S-8 of LADD Furniture,
Inc. of our reports dated February 7, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of LADD Furniture, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 30, 1995 and
December 28, 1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and cash flows and related schedule for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 28, 1996 which reports appear in the
December 28, 1996 annual report on Form 10- K of LADD Furniture, Inc. contained
in the Appendix to the Proxy Statement for the 1997 Annual Shareholders Meeting.


                                                     KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Greensboro, North Carolina
March 26, 1997



<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATION     I, Andrew P. Calerich, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 ofAmerican Oil & Gas, Inc.     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: August 15, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21463]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Infotest International

Correction

    In notice document 97-4376 appearing on page 8276 in the issue of 
Monday, February 24, 1997, make the following correction:
    In the first line, ``July'' should read ``January''.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-21463 Filed 8-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M