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

                                 CERTIFICATION


I, Charles W. Cramb, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Gillette Company;

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)) 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) [intentionally omitted]

(c) 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

(d) 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:  October 28, 2004

                                           /s/ Charles W. Cramb
                                           ____________________________________
                                           Charles W. Cramb
                                           Senior Vice President and Chief
                                           Financial Officer
258 La. 708

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert Leland ROTH.

No. 51429.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1971.

In re: Robert Leland Roth applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ denied. We find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, in the absence of a showing of prejudice.
#### Billy Lee FLOYD, Appellant, v. DUMAS MILNER CHEVROLET, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 66-893.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 25, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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 the Quarterly Report of Ambassadors International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Brian R. Schaefgen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies, 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), as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|                                        
|/s/ Brian R. Schaefgen                  
|Brian R. Schaefgen                      
|Chief Financial Officer November 9,
2006

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238, and 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.
#### CREDIT ALLIANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. MILLS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. R-121.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 23, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1973.

W. Dexter Douglass, of Douglass & Mi-chaels, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Walter J. Smith and James W. Grimsley, of Smith, Tolton, Grimsley & Barron, Fort Walton Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment after a jury verdict in which the jury found for the defendant as to one item of equipment and damages against the plaintiff in the amount of $78,000.00 based on the defendant’s counterclaim.

The facts in this case have been further complicated by the fact that plaintiff below utilized the statutory remedy of replevin in this case, but although considered to some extent, the procedure and rights accrued to the plaintiff under the Uniform Commercial Code. The evidence also brought out that certain items of equipment were repossessed that were not listed in the writ of replevin. The notice of sale under the replevin action was advertised for three separate days. There was some evidence of the defendant objecting to the sale, although it was brought out that an agent for the plaintiff had agreed with the president of the defendant corporation who was also the individual defendant, that the plaintiff at the sale would bid up to a certain sum on each item, which was not done at the sale.

*447There were many conflicts in the evidence, but we think the trial court did a masterful job in weeding out the things which were necessary for the jury to determine and ruling on the law where necessary.

It will not serve any purpose for us to relate in detail the lengthy record of testimony. We have carefully reviewed the trial court’s charges to the jury and are of the opinion that such charges were sufficient in law as applied to the facts in this case.

The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was correctly denied by the trial court, in our opinion. The conflicts in the evidence were decided by the jury and there was sufficient, competent testimony to sustain the jury verdict.

Therefore, the final judgment is hereby affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
260 La. 705

#### Billy LONG v. Ethel CHILDRESS et al.

No. 52117.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 11, 1972.

In re: Ethel Childress et al. applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caldwell. 255 So.2d 822.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law.
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of ION Networks, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") on Forms S-3
(File Nos. 333-09507, 333-85693, 333-50246 and 333-83686) and Forms S-8 (File
Nos. 333-61837, 333-14681, 333-76809, 333-76604 and 333-76568) of our report
dated June 28, 2001 relating to the consolidated balance sheet and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows at
and for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001, which appears in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended March 31, 2002.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Florham Park, New Jersey
July 31, 2002
EX-10.24





 Exhibit 10.24 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 

EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT OF DANIEL TASSE 

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE
AGREEMENT OF DANIEL TASSE the “Amendment”) is entered into this 27th day of June 2019 (the
“Effective Date”), by and between DANIEL TASSE (the “Executive”) and DBV TECHNOLOGIES S.A.
(the “Company”). 
 RECITALS 

A. The Company and the Executive have entered into that certain Executive Agreement effective November 29, 2018 (the
“Executive Agreement”); and 
 B. In light of the Board’s recent approval of the performance conditions
applicable to severance payments under Section 10 of the Executive Agreement, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Executive Agreement as provided in this Amendment. 

AGREEMENT 
 The parties
agree to the following: 
 1. Amendment to Section 10(a). Section 10(a) of the Executive Agreement
is hereby and replaced in its entirety as follows: 
 (a) Performance Conditions. In addition to
the above requirements regarding shareholder approval, all severance payments under this Section are contingent upon and subject to the achievement of all of the following performance conditions: 

(i) Approval of Viaskin® Peanut in a major market; 

(ii) The Company’s build of an EPIT® pipeline with three ongoing clinical
trials; and 
 (iii) The existence of six months of cash runway as determined in accordance with the Company’s spend in the calendar
quarter preceding the date of severance. 
 2. No Other Amendments. Except as modified or amended in this Amendment, no other term or
provision of the Executive Agreement is amended or modified in any respect. The Executive Agreement, and its exhibits, along with this Amendment, set forth the entire understanding between the parties with regard to the subject matter hereof and
supersedes any prior oral discussions or written communications and agreements. This Amendment cannot be modified or amended except in writing signed by the Executive and an authorized officer of the Company. 

  
 1/2 













 The parties have executed this First Amendment to the Executive Agreement of Daniel Tassé on the day
and year first written above. 
  

	
	DBV Technologies S.A.
	
	 /s/ David Schilansky

	David Schilansky
	
	Deputy CEO
	
	EXECUTIVE:
	
	 /s/ Daniel Tasse

	Daniel Tasse



  
 2/2
#### Mary Kathryn FINLAY v. ESTATE of Steve A. FINLAY et al.

No. 45478.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 10, 1969.

Guy Kenner Ellis, Jr., Greenville, for appellant.

James L. Robertson, S. B. Thomas, R. T. Love, Greenville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In
connection with Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of Axion International
Holdings, Inc. (the Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended herein as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, James Kerstein,
Chief Executive 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 fully presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations or the
      Company.





Date:
      March 18, 2010
                By:
                /s/
      James KersteinJames
      KersteinChief
      Executive Officer
# C_2022095EN.01003701.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/37

---

Order of the General Court of 2 December 2021 — FC v EASO

(Case T-303/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil Service - Temporary staff - Disciplinary proceedings - Applications for suspension - Summons to attend a hearing before the Disciplinary Board - Postponement of the date of the hearing - No act adversely affecting the applicant - Premature action - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 95/51)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: FC (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (represented by: P. Eyckmans and M. Stamatopoulou, acting as Agents, and by T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the act adopted by the Chair of the Disciplinary Board of EASO on [confidential] by which the applicant’s hearing in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her was fixed for [confidential].

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | FC shall pay her own costs and those incurred by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

FC shall pay her own costs and those incurred by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO).

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence Mikel, Appellant.

[654 NYS2d 907]

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: We agree with defendant that the submission of an annotated verdict sheet to the jury requires reversal *(see, People v Richardson,*234 AD2d 952; *see also, People v Damiano,*87 NY2d 477). We reject defendant’s contention that a witness did not have an independent basis for her in-court identification of defendant. The suppression court concluded that the photo array identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive and held a hearing to determine whether the witness had an independent basis for her identification of defendant. The witness testified that she saw defendant less than a week before the incident in question and observed a frontal view of him in broad daylight. She further testified that she was a passenger in a car with defendant for several hours that same day and that she was in a vehicle with defendant for several hours the night of the incident. Supreme Court properly concluded that there was an independent basis for the witness’s identification *(see, People v Bostic*[appeal No. 2], 222 AD2d 1073, *lv denied*88 NY2d 876; *see also, People v Bones,*125 AD2d 931, *lv denied*69 NY2d 824; *People v Siplin,*120 AD2d 933, *lv denied*68 NY2d 817). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
H. Res. 83 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 27, 2013. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 47) to 

reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. All 

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 

The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 

amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or 

their respective designees; (2) an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 

Print 113–2, if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 

point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled 
2 

•HRES 83 EH 

by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to 

commit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 50

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that in light of current

economic conditions the Federal taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, and home

heating fuel shall not be increased.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1993

Mr. SOLOMON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

in light of current economic conditions the Federal taxes

on gasoline, diesel fuel, and home heating fuel shall

not be increased.

Whereas many sectors of the Nation’s economy have yet to

recover from the recent economic downturn;

Whereas an energy tax increase would reduce personal consumption, considered to be the engine of the American

economy, and an increase in gasoline, diesel fuel, and

home heating fuel taxes would seriously hinder economic

recovery;

Whereas an increase in the Federal excise tax on gasoline by

10 cents per gallon would further damage the economy

in that such tax would increase the Consumer Price
2

•HRES 50 IH

Index by 0.3 percent, and place an undue hardship on

senior citizens, and low income Americans living on a

fixed income.

Whereas Federal, State, and local taxes account for nearly 30

percent of the retail price of gasoline;

Whereas all States already tax gasoline and 20 States in the

last 2 years have increased, or have considered increasing, their taxes on gasoline; and

Whereas an energy tax, including the gasoline, diesel fuel,

and home heating fuel taxes, are regressive in that less

affluent Americans must spend a greater proportion of

their income to pay those taxes than do more affluent

Americans: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that in light of the current economic condi3 tions the Federal taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, and home

4 heating fuel shall not be increased.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1071 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1071

 To provide that certain civil defense employees and employees of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency may be eligible for certain public 
        safety officers death benefits, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 28 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

  Mr. Cochran introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that certain civil defense employees and employees of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency may be eligible for certain public 
        safety officers death benefits, 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. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS DEATH BENEFITS FOR CIVIL DEFENSE 
              EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1204 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b) is amended in paragraph (7) 
(relating to the definition of a public safety officer) by striking out 
``or rescue squad or ambulance crew'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
``rescue squad or ambulance crew, or an employee of the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency or civil defense officer''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply only 
to employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency or civil 
defense officers who are injured or die in the line of duty on or after 
such date.

                                 <all>
```
1 

### Sievers, Michael E.

From: Sievers, Michael E.

Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 5:25 PM

To: Nia.Daniels@faa.gov

Cc: 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions@faa.go v; 333exemptions@faa.gov

Subject: RE: Petition for Exemption: Duke Ener gy Business Service, LLC (Docket No.

FAA-2015-0789)

Attachments: FAA Docket No FAA-2015-0789 - Specified sUAS (DEBS) (56024744_3)-c.pdf

Importance: High

Dear Ms. Daniels:

Many thanks for your inquiry and for taking the time to speak with me a few days ago.

I have attached to this email a chart that lists the information you have requested for a total of 15 UAS. As discussed,

the petition we submitted (and which was assigned the above

‐ referenced docket number) requested an exemption that

would permit the operation of any UAS craft previously or hereafter approved by the FAA by way of another Section 333

exemption grant. We are submitting the attached list of specified UAS so that the FAA can make a positive

determination on this petition without delay. We respectfully request, however, that the broader request articulated

by this petition continue, thereafter, to be considered by the FAA.

We stand ready to discuss any questions you may have.

Immediately after transmittal of this email, I will upload a copy of this submission directly to the docket folder at

www.regulations.gov

.

Many thanks,

Mike

Michael E. Sievers

Hunton & Williams LLP

Riverfront Plaza, East Tower

951 East Byrd Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074

(804) 788-8532 (direct)

(804) 343-4609 (fax)

msievers@hunton.com

From: Nia.Daniels@faa.gov [ mailto:Nia.Daniels@faa.gov ]

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:50 PM

To: Sievers, Michael E.

Cc: 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions@faa.gov

Subject: Petition for Exemption: Duke Energy Business Service, LLC (Docket No. FAA-2015-0789)



### May 28, 20152 

### Dear Mr. Sievers:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0789). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your

petition.

 Describe the aircraft make, mode l, and type (i.e. - fixed-wing, ro torcraft, lighter-than-air) for the

proposed UAS operation. The description shoul d include the maximum weight (including

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit

any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to

333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information

described above by June 11, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without

notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels

Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267

‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267

‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
CALL BY: 

CALL TO: 

Organization: 

Date: 

Time: 

PMN: 15-0026 

Organization: 

Phone: 

Concerning what? 

CBI: No 

MEMORANDUM of TELEPHONE CONVERSATION (Contains No TSCA CBI)