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



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Robert W. Peshek, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 of
Belden & Blake Corporation;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 made
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; 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
(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 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: May 10, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Robert W. PeshekRobert W. Peshek, Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer
 22
Annex 15

CHAPTER X.Y.**INFECTION****WITH *LEISHMANIA* SPP. (LEISHMANIOSIS)**

Article X.Y.1.

**General provisions**

For the purposes of the *Terrestrial Code*, *infection* with *Leishmania spp.* is defined as an *infection* of dogs and cats**by parasites of the family *Trypanosomatidae*,**order *Kinetoplastida*.

The *infection* is usually transmitted by the bite of an infected *Phlebotomus* sandfly.

The following defines the occurrence of*infection* with *Leishmania*spp.: 

1) *Leishmania spp.* amastigotes have been observed in samples from a dog or a cat, or

2) Nucleic acid specific to *Leishmania*spp.**has been detected in a sample from a dog or a cat showing clinical signs or pathological lesions consistent with infection with *Leishmania*spp., or epidemiologically linked to a case, or giving cause for suspicion of previous association or contact with *Leishmania*spp.,**or

3) Antibodies specific to *Leishmania*spp.**that are not the consequence of vaccination have been detected in a sample from a dog or a cat showing clinical signs or pathological lesions consistent with infection with *Leishmania*spp., or epidemiologically linked to a case, or giving cause for suspicion of previous association or contact with *Leishmania*spp.

Standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines are described in the *Terrestrial Manual*.

____________________________

*OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2022*1

*OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/February 2022*
EXHIBIT 23
                         Consent Of Independent Auditors



         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements No. 333-70862, 333-45750, 333-88899, 333-43117, 333-22323, 33-56145,
and 33-56147 on Form S-8 and Registration Statements No. 333-91966 and 333-98741
on Form S-3 of Charming Shoppes, Inc., of our report dated March 18, 2003, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Charming Shoppes, Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended February 1, 2003.






                                                          /S/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 15, 2003
#### Buddy H. Shaffer, Plaintiff, *v.*Irene S. Shaffer, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

April 27, 1959.

*Rubin Arnold*for plaintiff.

*Samuel Robson*for defendant.

Fred J. Munder, J.

The plaintiff originally commenced an action for separation, and the defendant interposed an answer including a counterclaim for an annulment of the marriage on the ground of fraud within the provisions of section 1139 of the *429Civil Practice Act. It was determined to try the issue of annulment and to hold the issue of separation in abeyance because it would be academic if the annulment were granted.

The proof before the court is in substance that the couple were married on May 16, 1954; that subsequently two children were born of the marriage, now aged three and two years; and that in September of 1958 the defendant learned for the first time from an outside source that her husband had been party to a prior marriage which was terminated by absolute decree of divorce granted in the District Court of Iowa, Pottawattamie County, on March 21, 1951, and that he was supporting two children of that marriage.

Defendant said that she entered into the nuptial state in the firm belief, based on his representation, that he, plaintiff, had never been married before, and that had she been informed of his prior marriage she would not have married him. As corroboration she submitted a verified transcript from the register of marriages of the Town of Brookhaven in which it is noted after *“*Number of Husband’s Marriages ’’that this was the husband’s *“*First ”. There is no evidence that the parties cohabited at any time since the defendant first discovered the facts constituting the alleged fraud.

The plaintiff, although present and testifying on the trial, does not in any manner attempt to deny that he was guilty of the fraud as charged.

Reluctant though I may be to dissolve a marriage of some four years’ duration of which two children have been born, I have nothing before me which in any way contradicts this young woman’s claim of reliance on the plaintiff’s fraudulent representation of an essential element to her consent to marry him. *(Di Lorenzo*v. *Di Lorenzo,*174 N. Y. 467.) In these circumstances I should not speculate that she would have married plaintiff even if she knew of his prior marital experience. On the proof as it stands she is entitled to have her marriage annulled as she prays in her counterclaim.

The children, of course, are the legitimate children of these parties and defendant shall have their custody. Plaintiff will be required to provide for their support at the rate of $20 per week.

This shall constitute the decision of the court in accordance with section 440 of the Civil Practice Act.

Let judgment be entered accordingly.
April 19, 2007

26985

#### Caires v. State

Affirmed
SERVE D DECEMBE R4 , 201 0 

### :EmRTMENTO F U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N-ANSPORTATIO M OFFIC EO FHEARING S ' •' S OPERATION S WASHINGTON , D C 

### X ~ 3 P 2:U R i.'. t I NTH EMATTE RO F SKYWES T AIRLINES , INC
. FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP09NM001 2 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S No
. FAA-2009-097 9
POS T HEARIN GBRIEFIN GSCHEDUL E Thi s matte r

cam e for hearin g o nDecembe r

1 an d2 , 2010 , inSal t

Lak e City , UT
. Th e hearing transcrip t

i s forthcoming
. WHEREFORE , th e partie s shal l adher e t o th e followin g Pos t Hearin g Briefin g Schedule : 1
. Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n(hereinafte r "Complainant" ) shal l fil e it s Post-Hearin g Brie f

o no r befor e January 28 , 2011 ; 2
. SkyWes t

Airlines , Inc
. (hereinafte r "Respondent" ) shal l fil e it s Post

Hearin g Brie f

o no r befor e Februar y 14 , 2011 ; an d 3
. Complainan t

shal l fil e it s Rebutta l Brief , i f any , o no r

befor e February 22 , 2011
. 

## "^yy^^-^j J ^ ^ - Richar dC
. Goodwi n U.S
. Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachment(s ) - Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP09NM001 2 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ' ON ECOP Y Tod dC
. Emerson , Respondent' s Counse l Director , Governmen t

an dLegal Affair s SkyWes t Airline s 44 4 Sout hRive r Roa d St
. George , U T 8479 0 TEL : 435-634-353 0 FAX : 435-634-350 5 Scot t R
. Morris , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l ^Torthwes t

Mountai nRegion , ANM- 7 Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W
. Renton , W A 9805 7 TEL : 425-227-141 7 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Ofific e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , use th e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio nAdministration, 60

0 Indqjendenc

e Avenue , S
. W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention ; Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430
.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-31252

Summary Calendar

__________________

M.A. BAHETH, also known as M. Allam Baheth; BAHETH RESEARCH &

DEVELOPMENT LAB; M.A. BAHETH & CO., INC.; BAHETH ENVIRONMENTAL &

ANALYTICAL TESTING LAB, LTD.,

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

GUARANTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, also known as Regions Bank

of Louisiana; CHUCK DABADIE; CHRIS POPE; FRANK CLARK,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. CA-95-96-M-A

- - - - - - - - - -

October 7, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants M.A. Baheth, also known as M. Allam Baheth;

Baheth Research & Development Lab; M.A. Baheth & Co., Inc.; and

Baheth Environmental & Analytical Testing Lab, Ltd., appeal the

district court's judgment dismissing their federal claims

pursuant to the antitying provisions of the Bank Holding Company
No. 95-31252

-2-

Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1972 and 1975, for failure to state a claim

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). They also appeal the dismissal

of their state law claims based on prescription. Because

appellants have failed to challenge the district court's

alternative basis for the dismissal of their state law claims

based on a discretionary declination of supplemental

jurisdiction, these claims are considered abandoned. See Weaver

v. Puckett, 896 F.2d 126, 128 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S.

966 (1990). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error regarding the dismissal of

the federal claims. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the

reasons given by the district court. M.A. Baheth, a/k/a M. Allam

Baheth; Baheth Research & Development Lab, and Baheth

Environmental & Analytical Testing Lab, Ltd. and M.A. Baheth &

Co., Inc. v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Company, et al., C.A. No. 95-

96-B-1 (M.D. La. Nov. 3, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
April 26, 2001

23131

#### State v. Nunez

Dismissed
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)**

**OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

I, Christopher Anzalone, Chief Executive Officer of Arrowhead ResearchCorporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterlyperiod ended March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: May 12, 2008 

 

A signed original of these written statements required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 hasbeen provided to Arrowhead Research Corporation and will be retained by Arrowhead Research Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Ryan Leigh HARSHA, Defendant.

Case No: 1:14-cr-00209 (TSC/GMH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed 10/18/2017

Michael Justin Friedman, U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for United States of America.

Jonathan Jeffress, Federal Public Defender for D.C., Washington, DC, for Defendant.

ORDER

TANYA S. CHUTEAN, United States District Judge

. Before the court are the Probation Petitions filed on June 24, 2015 and August 31, 2017. (ECF Nos. 22, 25). Upon careful consideration of the record in this case, Magistrate Judge Harvey’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.' 26), and Defendant Ryan Harsha’s objection thereto (ECF No. 27), the court hereby ADOPTS the Report of Magistrate Judge Harvey. The court further ACCEPTS the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Harvey, with one modification, as detailed below.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Harsha’s term of supervised release is revoked. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Harsha shall be incarcerated for three months. Harsha is hereby credited for the time that he has been detained pursuant to the warrant issued as a result of his probation violations. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Harvey noted that Harsha has been held in this matter since August 18, 2017. (ECF No. 26 at 10 n.3). After reviewing Harsha’s supplemental filing, however, the court finds that Harsha has been detained pursuant to the warrant in this case since August 14, 2017, and he will therefore be credited for the time he has served since that date. *(See*ECF No. 30).

There shall be no period of supervised release following Harsha’s incarceration.
#### A. L. GALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 107, Docket 28381.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 28, 1963.

Decided Nov. 21, 1963.

William McKelvey, New York City, for appellant.

*503Conboy, Hewitt, O’Brien & Boardman, New York City, for appellee; James S. Rowen, New York City, of counsel.

Before SWAN, CLARK and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for wrongful discharge from employment. Federal juris■diction rests on diversity of citizenship. ’The facts are stated in detail in Judge Bonsai’s opinion, reported in D.C., 220 F.Supp. 190. By way of introduction to •the issue presented by the plaintiff’s appeal it will suffice to say that plaintiff was a member of a union which had a collective bargaining agreement with the Railroad; that he caused the union to initiate proceedings pursuant to such agreement but instead of appealing to the System Board of Adjustment as required by the agreement, he brought action in the District Court. Judge Bonsai •decided as a matter of law that he was precluded from doing so. Relevant authorities were cited. We have nothing to -add to his opinion except a decision of this court subsequently handed down which gives additional support for his conclusion. Satterfield v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 323 F.2d 783 (2 Cir. 1963).

Judgment affirmed on opinion below.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: E.L.B., A MINOR

PETITION OF: E.L.B., MINOR CHILD :

:

:

:

: No. 30 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: E.B., MINOR

CHILD

PETITION OF: E.B., MINOR CHILD :

:

:

:

: No. 31 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of March, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# C_2018427EN.01000402.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 19 July 2018 — IN v Belgische Staat

(Case C-469/18)

(2018/C 427/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IN

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Should Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union, in cases of value added tax, be interpreted as precluding in all circumstances the use of evidence obtained in violation of the right to respect for private life as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter, or does it leave room for a national regulation under which the court which has to decide whether such a piece of evidence can be used as the basis for a VAT assessment has to make an evaluation such as the one set out above under paragraph 4 of this judgment.

---
### Gormas, Michael (OST) From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Due 

### By: Flag Status: Gormas, Michael (OST) on behalfof EAS (OST) Friday, April 03, 2015 3:17PM Gormas, Michael (OST) FW: Great Lakes letters · Letters regarding Great Lakes (1).pdf Follow up Monday, April 06, 2015 10:00AM Flagged

From: Levi Tappan [mailto:ltappan@citvofpage.org] 

### Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 5:19PM To: 

### EAS (OST) Subject: Great Lakes letters To Whom it may concern, The attachment contains City ofPage citizens experienceswith GreatLakes. Please do Page a service and bring in an airline that wantsto servicethe community. Thankyou fortaking the time to read.

Levi Tappan City Councilor P.O. Box 1180 697 Vista Ave. Page, Arizona 86040 928.660.8868

1 

# .I
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                      CONSENT OF BEARD MILLER COMPANY LLP


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8, File No. 333-79503) of our report, dated January 30, 2002,
except for note 7 as to which the date is February 25, 2002, relating to the
consolidated financial statements of Conestoga Enterprises, Inc. included in its
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.


                                                 /s/ BEARD MILLER COMPANY LLP


Reading, Pennsylvania
March 22, 2002

                                      -81-
EXHIBIT 23  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-130798, 333-142415, 333-155602 and 333-157179 on Forms S-8, Form S-3 and Form S-3D of First Financial Service Corporation of our report dated March 31, 2011 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of First Financial Service Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which report appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for First Financial Service Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2010. [GRAPHIC MISSING] Crowe Horwath LLP   Louisville, Kentucky March 31, 2011
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 22

- 00116

- CR

WALTER MURPHY , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 19F1148

- 005

Before M orriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

In 2019, Walter Murphy was c onvicted of possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment

. 1 On July 28, 2022, Mu rphy filed a document captioned Petition for Reduction of Sentence

. On August 4, 2022, the trial court ente red an order dismissing the petition, noting that it lacked jurisdiction to consider it. On August 25, 2022, Murphy filed a document in the tr ia l court captioned Appeal of Court Order. Both the trial court and this Court interpreted the August 25 filing as Murphy’s attempt to appeal the trial court’s
August 4 dismissal order.
In Texas, a party may appeal o nly when the Texas Legislature has auth orized an appeal.
Galitz v. State , 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); see Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d
694, 696

– 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“The standard for determining jurisdic tion is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether t he ap peal is authorized by law.”). When the Legislature passes legislation granting a right of appeal, in addition to granting its citizens that substantive right, it also grants the appella te courts of this State jurisdi ction to hear such appeals.

In th e abs ence of such authorizing legislation, appellate courts are without jurisdiction and have no authority to act. In the criminal context, the Texas Legislature has authorized appeals from w ritten judgments and/or appeala ble orders. See Gutierrez v. Stat e , 30 7 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2010). T he trial court’s order dismissing , for want of jurisdiction, Murphy’s petition for a

1 This sentence was ordered to run concurrent ly with the twenty

- year sentence Murphy received in a companion case in which he likewise filed a n appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing his petition seeking a sentence reduction. The companion appeal bears our cause number 06

- 22

- 00115

- CR.3

sentence reduction does not appear to be an order from wh ich the Texas Legislature has

a uthorized an appeal. In the absen ce of such authorization, we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Raley v. State , 441 S.W.3d 647, 650

– 52 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. ref’d).
By letter dated October 12 , 202 2 , we notified Murphy o f this jurisdictional issue and

af forde d him an opportunity to respond

. Murphy did not file a response.

Because there is no appealable order in the appellate record, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Consequently, we d ismiss the appeal for want of j urisdiction.

Josh R. Morri ss, I II Chief Justice

Date Submitted: November 9, 2022 Date Decided: November 10, 2022

Do Not Publish