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


I, Andrew P. Kaplan, certify that:

1.     I  have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q of Audible, 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(3)  and  15d-15(e))  for  the  registrant and have:

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

     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  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 of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's  auditors  and  the  audit  committee  of the registrant's board of
directors:

     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.


November ___, 2003                 By:______________________________
                                   Name: Andrew P. Kaplan
                                   Title: Chief Financial Officer, Executive
                                   Vice President, Finance and Administration
                                   (Principal Financial Officer)


<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                     STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                              BGF INDUSTRIES, INC.

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of BGF Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
R. Henderson, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350,
as adopted pursuant to (S) 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; 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/ James R. Henderson
-----------------------------
James R. Henderson
President
May 14, 2003
FILED

April 1, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JANUARY 1998 SESSION

SHERMAN SANDERS, )

also known as NEILTON E. SANDERS, ) No. 02-C-01-9701-CC-00027

)

APPELLANT, ) Obion County

)

v. ) Honorable William B. Acree, Jr., Judge

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction Relief)

)

APPELLEE. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Charles P. Roney John Knox Walkup

Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter

P. O. Box 542 425 Fifth Avenue, North

Union City, TN 38281-0542 Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Janis L. Turner

Counsel for the State

425 Fifth Avenue, North

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Thomas A. Thomas

District Attorney General

P. O. Box 218

Union City, TN 38261-0218

James T. Cannon

Assistant District Attorney General

P. O. Box 218

Union City, TN 38261-0218

OPINION FILED:_________________________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge

O P I N I O N
The appellant, Sherman Sanders, also known as Neilton E. Sanders (petitioner),

appeals as of right from a judgment of the trial court dismissing his post-conviction action

following an evidentiary hearing. The trial court found the petitioner was afforded the

effective assistance guaranteed by the United States and Tennessee Constitutions; and

pleas of guilty entered by the petitioner were voluntarily, understandingly, and intelligently

entered. In this court, the petitioner contends the evidence contained in the record

preponderates against the trial court’s findings of fact. After a thorough review of the

record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for

review, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. The evidence clearly does not

preponderate against the trial court’s findings of fact.

The petitioner and the attorney who represented the petitioner testified at the

evidentiary hearing. The testimony conflicts on every material fact. Their testimony cannot

be reconciled. The trial court accredited the testimony of the attorney. The transcript of

the submission hearing supports the trial court’s findings of fact. The transcript refutes

parts of the petitioner’s testimony.

________________________________________

 JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

CONCUR:

____________________________________

PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

____________________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
DATOS

RÁPIDOS

Departamento del Trabajo de EE.UU.

www.osha.gov (800) 321-OSHA

Para información más completa:

Administración de 

Seguridad y Salud 

Ocupacional

Protéjase

PlomoenlaConstrucción

El plomo es un elemento peligroso encontrado en muchos

lugares de construcción. La exposición a plomo proviene

de inhalar humos y polvo, y el plomo puede ser ingerido

cuando las manos están contaminadas con polvo de plomo.

Los trabajadores pueden llevarse el plomo a sus casas en

las ropas, piel, cabello, herramientas y vehículos.

La exposición a plomo puede ocurrir en actividades de

demolición, rescate, remoción, encapsulación renovación y

limpieza.

Evite la Exposición

• Use equipo de protección personal adecuado (por ejemplo,

guantes, ropa y respiradores aprobados).

• Lave las manos y cara después del trabajo y antes de

comer.

• Nunca entre a áreas de comer con el equipo de protección

puesto.

• Nunca use fuera del trabajo ropas y zapatos que fueron

usados durante la exposición al plomo.

• Lave la ropa diariamente, use métodos de limpieza adecuados.

• Esté alerta a síntomas de exposición a plomo (por ejemplo,

dolor abdominal severo, dolores de cabeza, pérdida de

coordinación motora).

Use Respiradores

• Use respiradores apropiados, según le sea indicado.

• Haga que el usuario conduzca un cotejo-de-sellado cada

vez que se ponga el respirador.

• Esté atento al programa de protección respiratoria de su

compañía; conozca las limitaciones y riesgos potenciales

de los respiradores.

Prevenga Futuras Exposiciones 

• Procure una ventilación adecuada

◆ En exteriores, manténgase en dirección contraria a la

que vaya cualquier contaminante.

• Cuando sea posible, use equipo para recoger polvo.

• Use materiales y químicos sin plomo.

• Use métodos húmedos para disminuir el polvo.

• Use ventilación con extracción local para trabajos en áreas

cerradas.
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131601-3 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

WILLIAM E. KASBEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131601-3 

 COA: 247297; 253201; 254295 

Leelanau CC: 96-003816-DO 

BERYL W. HOFFMAN, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 30, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0122 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 29, 2007 

 Clerk
Policy Statement on Whistleblowing 

The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to protecting current and former Federal employees 

and applicants for employment from interference and retaliation when making protected disclosures, or 

“whistleblowing,” which includes disclosing information related to a violation of law, rule, or regulation; 

gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to 

public health or safety. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, the expanded protections provided by 

the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA), and the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick 

Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, protect from retaliation individuals who report Federal agency 

misconduct. 

These provisions strengthen protections for Federal employees who disclose evidence of waste, fraud, or 

abuse, and modify rules on the use of nondisclosure policies or agreements by government agencies. 

They also clarify that these agreements do not override employee rights and obligations created by 

existing statute or Executive Order relating to classified information; communications with Congress; 

reporting violations and/or misconduct to an Inspector General; or any other whistleblower protection. In 

addition, Presidential Policy Directive 19 extends whistleblower protections to Federal employees eligible 

for access to classified data and the Kirkpatrick Act of 2017 makes it unlawful to access a Federal 

employee’s or an applicant’s medical records for certain unauthorized purposes. 

The Department will initiate appropriate actions against responsible persons who take, threaten to take, or 

fail to take a personnel action with respect to any employee, former employee, or applicant for 

employment because of any protected disclosure of information. In 2002, the Notification and Federal 

Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act was enacted to make all Federal agencies accountable 

for violations of antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws, and the Kirkpatrick Act of 2017 

enhances disciplinary penalties for supervisors who engage in whistleblowing retaliation. 

Legitimate disclosure of information by employees is an invaluable resource for the oversight of 

Government operations. I expect employees to report these matters confidentially to the Department’s 

Office of Inspector General (OIG), the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, or appropriate management 

officials. In accordance with the WPEA, a Whistleblower Protection Ombudsman has been designated in 

OIG to educate Agency personnel about whistleblower rights. 

The Department will not tolerate whistleblower retaliation. I am committed to maintaining the 

Department’s role and reputation as a Federal agency that respects the rights of current and former 

Federal employees and applicants for employment to raise legitimate concerns without fear of retaliation. 

I ask you to join me in implementing and communicating this important policy. 

Pete Buttigieg 

June 10, 2022
EXHIBIT 4.4



 



Exhibit 4.4


PROMISSORY NOTE



	 	 	 
	Value: $300,000.00	 	
Dated: November 5, 2002



          FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ZIM TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC. (the “Debtor”)
hereby promises to pay on demand to or to the order of 160879 Canada Inc. (the
“Holder”) in the City of Ottawa, Ontario at such address as the Holder may from
time to time direct, the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars
($300,000.00), in lawful money of Canada plus interest as herein provided.
Interest shall be calculated on the principal sum outstanding at the rate per
annum of five (5%) percent and shall accrue to the date of payment.



          Notwithstanding the other terms hereof, the Debtor shall have the right to
prepay at any time and from time to time without a bonus all or any portion of
the amount outstanding, including interest, under this Note.



          The Debtor and all endorsers of this Note hereby waive presentment of
payment, notice of non-payment, protest and notice of protest.



          This Note and the obligations represented hereby shall be binding upon the
Debtor and its permitted successors and assigns and shall inure to the benefit
of the Holder and its successors and assigns.



          DATED at Ottawa, this 5th day of November 2002.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED	 	 	 	)	 	 
	 	 	 	 	)	 	 
	 	 	 	 	)	 	ZIM TECHNOLOGIES
	 	 	 	 	)	 	INTERNATIONAL INC.
	 	 	 	 	)	 	per:
	 	 	 	 	)	 	/s/ James Stechyson
	 	 	 	 	)	 	

	 	 	 	 	)	 	Name:  James Stechyson
	 	 	 	 	)	 	Title:    Chairman
	 	 	 	 	)	 	I have the authority to bind the Corporation
# Appendix 6. Non-detect pests
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of Key Technology, Inc. (the "Company")
        on
        Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kirk W. Morton,
        Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; 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/
        Kirk W. Morton
 Kirk
        W.
        Morton
 President
        and Chief Executive Officer
 December
        22, 2005
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Appellant

v.

NVIDIA CORPORATION, SEMICONDUCTOR 

COMPONENTS INDUSTRIES, LLC, DBA ON 

SEMICONDUCTOR,

Appellees

______________________ 

2022-1112, 2022-1113

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-

00602, IPR2020-00603.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

RICHARD L. RAINEY, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

TAREK AUSTIN; NITIN SUBHEDAR, San Francisco, CA. 

 STANLEY JOSEPH PANIKOWSKI, III, DLA Piper US LLP, 

San Diego, CA, argued for appellee NVIDIA Corporation. 

Also represented by CLAYTON W. THOMPSON, II, YAKOV 

ZOLOTOREV, East Palo Alto, CA. 

Case: 22-1112 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 03/22/2023
 MICHAEL HAWES, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX, for 

appellee Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC. 

Also represented by ROGER FULGHUM; BRETT J. THOMPSEN, 

McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Austin, TX. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, SCHALL, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

March 22, 2023 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-1112 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 03/22/2023
<PAGE>

                                                             Exhibit 99.2

                            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 the  Quarterly  Report  of  Remedent  USA,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Stephen F. Ross, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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; and

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

/s/ Stephen F. Ross
--------------------------------
Stephen F. Ross
Chief Financial Officer
February 18, 2003



                                       32
<PAGE>
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 2
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEVIN SIGGERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 03-355 Erie

v. )

)

JOHN LAMANNA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on October 28, 2003,

and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report

and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.

 The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 53], filed on July

24, 2006, recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,

motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 46] be granted in part and denied in part. The

parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service

was made on Plaintiff by certified mail and on Defendants. Objections were filed by

Defendants on August 7, 2006 [Doc. 54]. After de novo review of the motion and

documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and the

objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 2006;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the

alternative, motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 46] is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part. Specifically, Defendants’ motion with respect to Plaintiff’s FTCA claim

against the United States is GRANTED and such claim is dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction based upon Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies;

and Defendants’ motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

against the individual Defendants. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 53] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

Case 1:03-cv-00355-SJM-SPB Document 56 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 2
2

on July 24, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:03-cv-00355-SJM-SPB Document 56 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7459

LAKEITH BYRON BROWN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ALTON BASKERVILLE; G. WASHINGTON; E. BARKSDALE; T. RAY; S. HILL; A. JOHNSON; E. GRAHAM;

L. CEI; S. MCNAMARA; R. BARLOW; T. NEUMAYER;

S. V. PREUTTE; R. HILDEBRAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-01-10)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 20, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lakeith Byorn Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lakeith Byron Brown appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Brown v. Baskerville, No. CA-01-10 (E.D. Va. June 28, 2001). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# EUR-Lex - 32005M3831 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32005M3831

**Commission Decision of 27/06/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3831 - ORANJE-NASSAU GROUP / SHV HOLDING / EDINBURGH OIL & GAS) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

| |Brussels, 27.06.2005

SG-Greffe(2005) D/202822/23

To the notifying parties

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject : Case No. COMP/M.3831-Oranje-Nassau Group/SHV Holdings/Edinburgh Oil & Gas Notification of 23.05.2005 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C 131, 28/05/2005, p2.

1. On 23.05.2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertakings Oranje-Nassau Group B.V. (“ONG”, The Netherlands) and SHV Holdings (“SHV”, The Netherlands) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of the undertaking Edinburgh Oil & Gas plc (“Edinburgh Oil”, UK) through a newly created vehicle company Dyon UK Limited, by way of purchase of shares.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for ONG : investment and management of interests in energy;

- for SHV : supply and distribution of liquefied petroleum gas, supply of food and non-food consumer goods, production and supply of raw materials, exploration and production of oil and gas;

- for Edinburgh Oil : exploration and production of oil and gas.

2. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph (a) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004[2].

3. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission, signed

Neelie KROES Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION