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

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

and Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I, Dennis Calvert, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed Amendment No. 1 to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of BioLargo, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain
any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

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

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is 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 21, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Dennis Calvert     
|                   |  |     |  | Dennis Calvert         
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
# C_2021252EN.01003703.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/37

---

Order of the General Court of 5 May 2021 — Papaconstantinou and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-188/18) (1)

(2021/C 252/57)

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---
SEC Connect





 











Exhibit
10.5 



 



Fourth Amendment



to



Employment Agreement


 


This Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement
(the “Fourth
Amendment”), is being entered into effective October
20, 2016 by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”) and Mr. David Harding
(the “Executive”).



                    


  
Whereas, the Company and Executive entered into an
Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2013 and subsequently
amended on November 1, 2013, January 9, 2015 and December 14, 2015
(as amended, the “Employment
Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, the Executive continues to perform valuable
services for the Company and the Company desires to assure itself
of the continuing services of Executive; and


 


WHEREAS, in consideration of the foregoing and in order
to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide for the
continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present
intent of the Company and the Executive.


 


NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of
the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further
consideration of the mutual covenants contained in the Employment
Agreement, the parties do hereby agree that the Employment
Agreement is hereby amended as follows:


 



1. 

Section “3. Term
of Agreement” strike the language “continue until December
31, 2016” and replace it with “continue until December
31, 2017”.






 


 



2. 

Except as expressly
amended herein, the Employment Agreement shall continue and be in
full force in all respects.






 


 


 


 







	
 /s/ S. James
Miller 


	
 /s/ David
Harding



	
 ImageWare Systems,
Inc.  


	
 David
Harding
In the Senate of the United States, 

July 26, 2018. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 4318) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily 

certain rates of duty.’’, do pass with the following 

AMENDMENTS: 

1 Ω1æStrike sections 324, 372, and 1118. 

2 Ω2æStrike section 1274 and insert the following: 

3 SEC. 1274. MEN’S SHOES WITH OUTER SOLES AND UPPERS 

4 OF RUBBER OR PLASTICS, VALUED OVER $3 

5 BUT NOT OVER $6.50 PER PAIR. 

6 Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting 

7 in numerical sequence the following new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.14.03 Men’s footwear with outer soles 

and uppers of rubber or plastics, with foxing or foxing-like 

band, covering the ankle, 

closed toe or heel, valued over 

$3 but not over $6.50 per pair, 

the foregoing other than sports 

footwear and protective, waterproof or slip-on type footwear 

(provided for in subheading 

6402.91.70) ............................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2020 ... ’’. 
2 

† HR 4318 EAS 

1 Ω3æStrike section 1275 and insert the following: 

2 SEC. 1275. MEN’S SHOES WITH OUTER SOLES AND UPPERS 

3 OF RUBBER OR PLASTICS, VALUED OVER $6.50 

4 BUT NOT OVER $12 PER PAIR. 

5 Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting 

6 in numerical sequence the following new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.14.04 Men’s footwear with outer soles 

and uppers of rubber or plastics (other than sports footwear), with foxing or foxing 

like band, covering the ankle, 

closed toe or heel, valued over 

$6.50 but not over $12.00 per 

pair, not of the protective, waterproof or slip-on type (provided for in subheading 

6402.91.80) ............................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2020 ... ’’. 

7 Ω4æStrike section 1305 and insert the following: 

8 SEC. 1305. SKI BOOTS AND SNOWBOARD BOOTS. 

9 Subchapter II of chapter 99 is amended by inserting 

10 in numerical sequence the following new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.14.34 Ski boots, cross country ski 

footwear or snowboard boots, 

constructed with a forwardleaning upper or designed to 

attach securely to skis or a 

snowboard by means of 

bindings, the foregoing valued 

over $12/pair, with outer soles 

of rubber, plastics, leather or 

composition leather and uppers of textile materials (provided for in subheading 

6404.11.90) ............................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2020 ... ’’. 

11 Ω5æStrike sections 1389, 1399, 1564, and 1565. 

12 Ω6æStrike section 1665 and insert the following: 
3 

† HR 4318 EAS 

1 SEC. 1665. CUSTOMS USER FEES. 

2 Section 13031(j)(3)(A) of the Consolidated Omnibus 

3 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(A)) 

4 is amended by striking ‘‘July 21, 2027’’ and inserting ‘‘Oc5 tober 13, 2027’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 4318 

AMENDMENTS
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Weil, Jr., et al., Appellants.

(No. 32143

Decided May 10, 1950.)

*Mr. Frank T. Gullitan,*prosecuting attorney, and *Miss Gertrude M. Bauer,*for appellee.

*Mr. M. A. Picciano, Mr. A. L. Kerns*and *Mr. A. L. Adelstein,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the *587reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hast, Zimmerman and Turner, JJ., concur.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed April 28, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 23

- 00231

- CV

CHARLOTTE BUCKNER , Appellant

V. WHITE ROCK HILL TOWN HOMES , Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 22

- 06021

- B

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove

Opinion by Justice Nowell This is an appeal from the trial court’s March 6, 2023 fina l judgment of
possession in a forcible detainer suit. Asserting the appeal has become moot because
appellant is no longer in possession of the subject property, appellee has filed a

motion to dismiss.
The only issue in a forcible detainer suit is the righ t to actual possession of the
premises. See Marshall v. Housing Auth. of City of San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782,
785 (Tex. 2006). Unless the tenant has a “potentially meritorious claim of right to
current, actual possession,” the issue of possession and the case become moot when– 2

–

the tenant vacates the property

. See id. at 787. When a case becomes moot on
appeal, an appellate court must set aside or vacate the trial court’s judgment and

dismiss the case. See id. at 785, 790.
Although appellant has had more than ten days to respond to appellee’s
motion, she has not done so. Accordingly, with nothing before us showing appellant
has a “potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession,” we grant
appellee’s motion, vacate the trial court’s M arch 6th judgment of possession, and

dismiss the case. See id. at 790.

230231f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell/ / ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CHARLOTTE BUCKNER, Appellant

No. 05

- 23

- 00231

- CV V.

WHITE ROCK HILL TOWNHOMES, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 22

- 06021

- B. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell, Justices Goldstein and Breedlove participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the trial court’s March 6, 2023 judgment of possession and DISMISS the case.

Judgment entered this 28 th day of April
, 2023.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997   
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1997   
<CASH>                                    2,469         
<SECURITIES>                                  0         
<RECEIVABLES>                             8,760         
<ALLOWANCES>                                192         
<INVENTORY>                              10,865         
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         23,555         
<PP&E>                                   46,684         
<DEPRECIATION>                            8,575         
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           79,995         
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    16,509         
<BONDS>                                  25,415         
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0         
<PREFERRED>                                   0         
<COMMON>                                    637         
<OTHER-SE>                               34,380         
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             79,995         
<SALES>                                  20,079         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         30,836         
<CGS>                                    14,363         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            22,143         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          5,677         
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0         
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        1,215         
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,801         
<INCOME-TAX>                                685         
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0         
<DISCONTINUED>                                0         
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0         
<CHANGES>                                     0         
<NET-INCOME>                              1,345         
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.22         
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.22         
                                   


</TABLE>
State Office of Risk 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 10, 2014

No. 04-14-00558-CV

Edna A. MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001-CI-17102

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's third motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. 

Appellant's brief is due on or before January 7, 2015.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Gene-Environment Interplay II.                    

*Date:*                         January 9, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Nijaguna Prasad, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg., Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9667,                         *prasadnb@nia.nih.gov*.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 15, 2023. 

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-28018 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                               HEALTHSOURCE, INC.
                      COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                 (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                -------------------------------
                                                                 1996        1995        1994
                                                                -------     -------     -------
<S>                                                             <C>         <C>         <C>
1. Net income (loss)..........................................  $(3,940)    $56,271     $39,044
2. Preferred dividends........................................   (1,128)     (4,167)         --
                                                                -------     -------     -------
3. Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders........   (5,068)     52,104      39,044
                                                                =======     =======     =======
              COMPUTATION OF SHARES OUTSTANDING
4. Average weighted common shares outstanding.................   63,725      62,983      61,696
5. Dilutive effect of stock options issued....................       --       1,212       1,122
                                                                -------     -------     -------
6. Average weighted common shares and share equivalents
  outstanding.................................................   63,725      64,195      62,818
                                                                =======     =======     =======
NET INCOME PER SHARE (3/6):...................................  $ (0.08)    $  0.81     $  0.62
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Dennis
P. Calvert, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.





Dated:
      August 16, 2010
            
            
            
            By:
            
            /s/ DENNIS
      P. CALVERTDennis
      P. CalvertPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to BioLargo, Inc. and will be retained by BioLargo, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.




I,
Charles K. Dargan II, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of BioLargo, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of BioLargo, Inc.





Dated:
      August 16, 2010
            
            
            
            By:
            
            /s/
      CHARLES K. DARGAN IICharles
      K. Dargan IIChief
      Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to BioLargo, Inc. and will be retained by BioLargo, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
[Crim. No. 11408.

First Dist., Div. Three.

May 1, 1973.]

#### In re JAMES R. RICKS on Habeas Corpus.

*1007Counsel

Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Assistant Attorney General, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, William D. Stein, Eugene Raster and W. Eric Collins, Deputy Attorneys General, for Appellant.

William C. Connell, Public Defender, and Donald G. Umhofer, Deputy Public Defender, for Respondent.

Opinion

DRAPER, P. J.

Respondent Ricks was paroled from Folsom prison in July 1971. He was arrested in Humboldt County on a narcotics charge in September 1972. His parole agent recommended his commitment to the Narcotic Treatment and Control Unit for treatment (Health & Saf. Code, § 11751). Relying upon *Morrissey*v. *Brewer,*408 U.S. 471 [33 L.Ed.2d 484, 92 S.Ct. 2593], Ricks sought habeas corpus. The trial court agreed that *Morrissey*requires a due process hearing and ordered that Ricks not be committed to the NTCU until the hearing was held. Pursuant to the order, Ricks was released from jail. The People appeal.

The applicability of the two-step process required by *Morrissey*for revocation, cancellation or suspension of parole or probation has been fully recognized in California *(People*v. *Vickers,*8 Cal.3d 451 [105 Cal. Rptr. 305, 503 P.2d 1313]; *People*v. *Nelson,*8 Cal.3d 463 [105 Cal. Rptr. 314, 503 P.2d 1322]; *In re Prewitt,*8 Cal.3d 470 [105 Cal.Rptr. 318, 503 P.2d 1326]). We recognize that the code section authorizing NTCU commitment provides that such commitment is not a suspension, cancellation or revocation of parole. Similarly, we note that section 11751 limits the NTCU commitment to 90 days, and that actual retention may be much briefer than this maximum period. But such a commitment is *1008a deprivation of the liberty which, although conditional and limited, is enjoyed by a parolee and is protected by *Morrissey.*

Respondent concedes that the second and more formal *Morrissey*hearing is not required before delivery of respondent to NTCU. He urges only that the first, or preliminary examination hearing is essential. The burden of such a hearing upon the state is minimal. As pointed out in *Morrissey,*408 U.S. at pp. 486, 487 [33 L.Ed.2d at p. 497], it may be held before a parole officer other than the one who made the report. The parolee must be given notice of the hearing. He may be heard in his own behalf, and can produce some evidence, if available. Here, the essential issue appears to be whether he has reverted to use of narcotics. Obviously, but little time would be required to determine this limited issue.

Upon this balancing of burdens, there seems no reason to disturb the result reached by the trial court.

We need not determine at what point, if any, within the possible 90-day retention in NTCU, the second stage *Morrissey*hearing need be held. No issue as to that hearing is here presented.

The order granting the writ is affirmed.

Brown (H. C.), J., and Caldecott, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 28, 1973. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.