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

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

**ChiefAccounting Officer**

 

I, Barry Golko, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSBof Analytical Surveys, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;

 

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

 

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

 

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b)  [reserved]

 

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisannual report based on such evaluation; and

 

d) Disclosed in this annualreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: December 27, 2005 |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
| /s/ Barry Golko              |   |
| Barry Golko                  |
| Chief Accounting Officer     |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1272 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1272

  To provide that certain requirements of the Patient Protection and 
    Affordable Care Act do not apply if the American Health Benefit 
            Exchanges are not operating on October 1, 2013.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 10, 2013

  Mr. Roberts (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
  Inhofe, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Enzi) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide that certain requirements of the Patient Protection and 
    Affordable Care Act do not apply if the American Health Benefit 
            Exchanges are not operating on October 1, 2013.

    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 ``Exchange Sunset Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. NONAPPLICATION OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE 
              ACT.

    (a) Termination of Exchange Requirement.--Section 1311 of the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18031) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:
    ``(l) Failure To Offer Coverage.--If one or more Exchanges fails to 
accept applications for enrollment in qualified health plans beginning 
on October 1, 2013, the requirements of this section shall cease to 
apply, and any other provisions of this Act (or an amendment made by 
this Act) relating to Exchanges shall not be applicable.''.
    (b) Requirement of Coverage.--Section 5000A of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Termination.--The provisions of this section shall terminate 
on October 1, 2013, if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that 
one or more Exchanges fails to accept applications for enrollment in 
qualified health plans on such date.''.
                                 <all>
```
Order filed November 2, 2021 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00443-CV

____________

GENEVER HUBBITT, Appellant

V.

JOHN D. DEAJON JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1166838

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due September 16, 2021. No brief or motion to extend 

time has been filed. Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before 

November 16, 2021, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

                             NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL
                                      OF
                          CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT

Notice of non-renewal was adopted for all participating members of the executive
management group.

WHEREAS Crown Vantage Inc. (the "Company") and ____________ ("Executive") are
Parties to an Agreement dated as of the ____ day of _____________, 19___, which
Agreement is commonly referred to as the "Change of Control" Agreement, and

WHEREAS Section 1(b) of the Change of Control Agreement provides that the
"Change of Control Period" shall mean a three-year period from the date of the
Agreement, as extended, year to year at the Renewal Date, unless at least 60
days prior to the Renewal Date, notice is given that the Change of Control
Period shall not be so extended, and

WHEREAS Section 1(a) of the Change of Control Agreement defines the Effective
Date of that Agreement, and

WHEREAS the Effective Date has not yet come to pass, and

WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") has determined that
it is in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders to not extend the
Change of Control Period,

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 1(b) of the Change of Control Agreement, the
Board hereby gives written notice to Executive that as of the date hereof, the
Change of Control Agreement shall not be extended at the next Renewal Date.


Date: August 30, 1999                  Crown Vantage Inc.


                                       By: _________________________________
                                           Robert A. Olah
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41367

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO TARULA-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CR-193-1

- - - - - - - - - -

October 22, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Roberto Tarula-Gonzalez has

filed a motion to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in this appeal of a conviction

and sentence imposed for the violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a),

(b). Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
-  HIPAA for Professionals 
-  Regulatory Initiatives 
-  Privacy      -  Summary of the Privacy Rule 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Combined Text of All Rules 
  -  HIPAA Related Links 
-  Security      -  Summary of the Security Rule 
  -  Security Guidance  
  -  Cyber Security Guidance 
-  Breach Notification      -  Breach Reporting 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  Regulation History 
-  Compliance & Enforcement      -  Enforcement Rule 
  -  Enforcement Process 
  -  Enforcement Data 
  -  Resolution Agreements 
  -  Case Examples 
  -  Audit 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  State Attorneys General 
-  Special Topics      -  HIPAA and Part 2 
  -  Change Healthcare Cybersecurity Incident FAQs 
  -  HIPAA and COVID-19 
  -  HIPAA and Reproductive Health        -  HIPAA and Final Rule Notice 
  -  HIPAA and Telehealth 
  -  HIPAA and FERPA 
  -  Research 
  -  Public Health 
  -  Emergency Response 
  -  Health Information Technology 
  -  Health Apps 
-  Patient Safety      -  Statute & Rule        -  PSQIA Statute 
    -  Patient Safety Rule 
  -  Enforcement 
  -  Guidance 
-  Covered Entities & Business Associates      -  Business Associate Contracts 
  -  Business Associates 
-  Training & Resources 
-  FAQs for Professionals 
-  Other Administrative Simplification Rules 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Judge rules in favor of OCR and requires a Texas cancer center to pay $4.3 million in penalties for HIPAA violations

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) has ruled that The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MD Anderson) violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules and granted summary judgment to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) on all issues, requiring MD Anderson to pay $4,348,000 in civil money penalties (CMPs) imposed by OCR.
                          - Read the HHS Press Release
                          - Read the Notice of Proposed Determination
                          - Read the ALJ’s Decision

Content last reviewed June 18, 2018
<PAGE>

                    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 Quarterly Report of Evergreen Solar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A.
Farber, 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 to my knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Richard M. Feldt

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

Richard M. Feldt
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2004
Exhibit 10.19.2



 


SECOND AMENDMENT


TO THE HUMACYTE,
INC.


2015 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT to the Humacyte, Inc.
2015 Omnibus Incentive Plan is dated as of June 6, 2018.


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Humacyte,
Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted and the stockholders of the Company have approved the Humacyte, Inc. 2015 Omnibus
Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors determines
that it is in the best interest of the Company to amend the Plan in order to increase the maximum aggregate number of shares of
common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of the Company subject to Options (as defined under the Plan) granted under the Plan
in any fiscal year to any individual from Three Million (3,000,000) to Five Million (5,000,000) shares.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended
as follows:


 


		1.	Section 3(c)(ii) of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and the following substituted in lieu thereof:



 


“the
maximum aggregate number of Shares subject to Options granted in any one fiscal year to any individual shall be
5,000,000;”


 


		2.	Except as herein amended, the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as previously adopted
and approved.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hereby certifies
that this Second Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors as of May 31, 2018 and by the stockholders of the Company
as of June 6, 2018.


 





	 	 	HUMACYTE, INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	/s/ Carrie S. Cox
	 	 	 	 	Carrie S. Cox
	 	 	 	 	President and CEO
	 	 	 	 
	ATTEST:	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Paul A. Boyer	 	 
	 	Paul Boyer, Assistant Secretary
#### Henry Lee THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-608.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 28, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: Burkhead v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 690; Ricks v. State, Fla.App.1971, 242 So.2d 763; Reath v. State, Fla.App.1972, 259 So.2d 175; § 790.01(2), Fla.Stat. (1969), F.S.A.
#### Ronald BUDD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-441.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 20, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
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 hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 21, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                                                     
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Dated: November 4, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Martin A. Lynch                                 
|                        |  |  |  | Martin A. Lynch                                     
|                        |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



Note: A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Stewart CARRIER et ux., et al. v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 53938.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: Travelers Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review,to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 281 So.2d 805.

Application denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error in its opinion.
#### K. C. SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-527.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 5, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Herbert Herman TARPLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-909.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 22, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Bennett H. Brummer, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By an information the appellant was charged with robbery, in one count, and with assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree, in a second count. His trial before a jury resulted in convictions on both counts. On the first count he was convicted of robbery. On the second count the conviction was for aggravated assault, a lesser included offense of the offense there charged. He was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years on the former, and to imprisonment for five years on the latter, with provision for the sentences to run concurrently. The sole question presented on this appeal taken by the defendant is whether imposition of two sentences by the court was error.

Appellant argues: “It is well established that where an information contains more than one count, but each is a facet or phase of the same transaction, a conviction may be had on each count, but only one sentence may be imposed.” We are not in disagreement with that proposition. See Yost v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 469, cited by appellant.

However, on the facts of this case the argument submitted by the appellant is not applicable.

The record shows that an employee of a life insurance company, engaged in the *302collection of premiums in a certain area of the city, and his supervisor who was accompanying him, were accosted on the street by the defendant who pointed a gun at the head of one of the men and forced them to enter an alley or areaway between two buildings; that thereupon other men appeared and relieved the agent of money and other articles on his person, following which the defendant and the other assailants departed from the area, and as they were leaving one of them fired a shot at the victims. There was testimony by one of the victims that the defendant was the man who fired the shot.

The charged offense of assault with intent to commit murder (under which the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault) was committed after the robbery occurred, and during the defendant’s flight from the scene of the first offense. In that situation the two offenses were separate, and it was proper to impose the two sentences. Steele v. Mayo, Fla. 1954, 72 So.2d 386; Kish v. State, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 639; Footman v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 356.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification

In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of GeoResources, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Howard E. Ehler, Chief Financial
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, 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/ Howard E. EhlerHoward E. EhlerChief Financial OfficerMay 6, 2011






|* | The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Harold BROOMFIELD.

No. 60823.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

William J. O’Hara, III, Supervising Atty., New Orleans, Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Student Practitioner, Loyola Law School Clinic, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Philip J. Boudousque, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DENNIS, J.,

concurs for the reasons assigned in the separate opinions in *State v. Terrebonne,*No. 60,731, La., 354 So.2d 1356.

TATE, J.,

concurs. The substantial issue of constitutionality does not appear to be squarely raised by trial court motion or objection or by assignment of error.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6160
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN RODELL JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant.
No. 99-6165
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN RODELL JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-95-319-A, CA-99-1-AM) Submitted: April 15, 1999 Decided: April 21, 19992 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Rodell Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Bonner McClendon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order denying the § 2255 motion is marked as “filed” on January 5, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on January 6, 1999. Pursuant to Rule 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Kevin Rodell Johnson appeals orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994& Supp. 1998) and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Johnson , Nos. CR-95-319-A; CA-99-1-AM (E.D. Va. Jan . 6 & Jan. 26, 1999). * 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.

DISMISSED
#### John BELL, Appellant, v. Harley BOZE and Dorcas Boze, his wife, Appellees.

No. 71-768.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.