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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuantto Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Harry Brill,certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Gladstone Capital Corporation;

 

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

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

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

 

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

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

 

c) disclosed inthis report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that 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 theregistrant’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 controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

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

 

b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  February 17, 2004          |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                   |
| /s/  HARRY BRILL                  |   |
| Harry Brill                            |
| Chief Financial  Officer and Treasurer |

 

----
Exhibit
        31
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I,
        Atsushi Maki, certify that:
 
 1.  
         I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Amanasu
        Environment Corporation;
 
 2.  
         Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
        of 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
        quarterly report;
 
 4.  
         I am 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 we have:
 
 a)  
         Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
        disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my 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 my conclusions about the effectiveness
        of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
        by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)  
         Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
        over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
        fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
        materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
        and
 
 5.  
         I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s
        auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons
        performing the equivalent function):
 
 a)  
         All significant deficiencies and material weakness 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 data; and
 
 b)  
         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
        employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls
        over
        financial reporting.
 
 
 Date:
                  November 20, 2006/s/
                  Atsushi MakiAtsushi
                  MakiCEO,
                  CFO, CAO
Petition for exemption/rulemaking

I am the airport board chairman for DuPont

-Lapeer Airport (D95) owned by Mayfield Township, Lapeer County, Michigan

. I am requesting to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for the research and development for wild life management on airports and aerial inspection of airport property and structures. This would include having a handheld com m radio to monitor ground and air movement of aircraft so the UAS would be recalled to limit any conflict with aircraft. The UAS would be limited to only 50’ above the tallest airport structure or less than 400’

. I would also like to conduct training of persons individually or belonging to both private and or public organizations that have interest in the use and application of a UAS

. The purpose of this training is for safe operation of a UAS and to enhance the safety of the national airspace system (NAS) as well as for the protection of persons and property. This training would include aerial inspection of residential and/or commercial structures under contract with the owners or local government authority, aerial photography and/or video for public and/or private use including real estate, architecture, land surveying, engineering and other related professional activities, aerial video/photography or providing live video feed to assist with search and rescue operations in cases of an emergency or natural disaster when the local authorities or government have requested it

.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1543 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1543

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 1996

  Referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
       To clarify the treatment of Nebraska impact aid payments.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF IMPACT AID PAYMENTS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Education shall treat any State 
as having met the requirements of section 5(d)(2)(A) of Public Law 81-
874 for fiscal year 1991, and as not having met those requirements for 
each of the fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994, if--
            (1) its program of State aid was not certified by the 
        Secretary under section 5(d)(2(C)(i) of Public Law 81-874 for 
        any fiscal year before fiscal year 1991;
            (2) the State submitted timely notice under that section of 
        its intention to seek that certification;
            (3) the Secretary determined that the State did not meet 
        the requirements of section 5(d)(2)(A) of Public Law 81-874 for 
        fiscal year 1991; and
            (4) it has made a payment to each local educational agency 
        in the State, other than any local educational agency that 
        received a payment for fiscal year 1991 under section 
        3(d)(2)(B) of Public Law 81-874, whose State aid it reduced for 
        that fiscal year, in the full amount of that reduction.
    (b) Repayment not Required.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, any local educational agency in such a State that received funds 
under section 3(d)(2)(B) of Public Law 81-874 for fiscal year 1991 
shall not, by virtue of subsection (a), be required to repay those 
funds to the Secretary.

            Passed the Senate January 26, 1996.

            Attest:

                                             KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

                                                             Secretary.
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Gary S. Jacob,certify that:

1)     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

2)     Based onmy knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3)     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4)     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that 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, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5)     Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: August 14, 2007 |                      |
|----------------------------|---------------------------|
|                       | /s/ GARY S. JACOB         |
|                       | Gary S. Jacob             |
|                       | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1806/2006

of 7 December 2006         

amending Regulation (EC) No 1613/2000 derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 in respect of the definition of the concept of originating products used for the purposes of the scheme of generalised preferences to take account of the special situation of Laos regarding certain exports of textiles to the Community

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1), and in particular Article 247 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (2), and in particular Article 76 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1613/2000 is amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 December 2006.

For the Commission

László KOVÁCS            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 117, 4.5.2005, p. 13).

(2)OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 402/2006 (OJ L 70, 9.3.2006, p. 35).

(3)OJ L 169, 30.6.2005, p. 1.

(4)OJ L 185, 25.7.2000, p. 38. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2186/2004 (OJ L 373, 21.12.2004, p. 14).

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Humberto ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 90-50459.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 27, 1992.

As Amended Nov. 3, 1992.

*311Before: GOODWIN and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges, and KING,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Samuel P. King, Senior United States by designation. District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting

ORDER

This case is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. *United States v. Alvarez-Machain,*— U.S.—, 112 S.Ct. 2188, 119 L.Ed.2d 441 (1992). Ap-pellee Humberto Alvarez-Machain has moved for permission to file a supplemental brief and for oral argument on issues not addressed in this court’s original opinion. *United States v. Alvarez-Machain,*946 F.2d 1466 (9th Cir. 1991).

The principal such issue is whether customary international law alone, absent reliance on a formal treaty, may justify the district court’s order that Alvarez-Machain be repatriated to Mexico. We have carefully reviewed the Supreme Court’s opinion and the district court’s findings. If the Supreme Court’s opinion does not preclude us from applying general principles of international law in support of the district court’s repatriation order, then the district court’s findings and conclusions do preclude that result. To the extent that customary international law may arguably provide a basis for an exception to the *Ker-Frisbie*Doctrine, the exception has been recognized only in a situation in which the government’s conduct was outrageous. *See United States v. Reed,*639 F.2d 896, 901 (2d Cir. 1981); *United States v. Toscanino,*500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir.1974). The district court found that situation did not occur here.

Alvarez-Machain’s main alternative argument is that the circumstances of his kidnapping were so shocking that the abduction constituted a denial of due process. This contention similarly is not supported by the district court’s findings. *Cf. United States ex rel. Lujan v. Gengler,*510 F.2d 62, 65-66 (2d Cir.), *cert. denied,*421 U.S. 1001, 95 S.Ct. 2400, 44 L.Ed.2d 668 (1975).

Neither do we see any basis, in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion, to believe the district court could order this prosecution dismissed in an exercise of supervisory power independent of international law and due process principles.

Alvarez-Machain’s “Application for Leave to File Reply Memorandum,” filed July 16, 1992, is granted and the reply is ordered filed.

Alvarez-Machain’s motion is DENIED. The order of the district court dismissing the prosecution is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for reinstitution of prosecution against Alvarez-Machain.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Exhibit 23.1


                [DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP LETTERHEAD APPEARS HERE]


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos.
333-03040, 333-67581, 333-67581-01,  333-67581-02,  333-67581-03,  333-67581-04,
333-72979, 333-67579, 333-109304, 333-109304-01,  333-109304-02,  333-109304-03,
333-109981 and 333-117600 on Form S-3 (as amended) and  Registration  Statements
Nos. 333-03042, 333-03044,  333-27987, 333-95497,  333-103009, and 333-109941 on
Form S-8 (as  amended)  of our  reports  dated  March 8, 2005,  relating  to the
consolidated  financial  statements of UnionBanCal  Corporation and subsidiaries
and management's  report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting,  appearing  in  this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K  of  UnionBanCal
Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2004.


/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Francisco, California
March 8, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned President and chief executive officer of First Republic
Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies on the date hereof pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2005 (the Form 10-Q), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                         |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 11, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ JAMES J. BAUMBERGER
|                      |  |  |  | Name:                   |  | James J. Baumberger                  
|                      |  |  |  | Title:                  |  | President and chief executive officer
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ROBERT ALLEN TRIBBLE JR.

, Appellant,

v.

CLYDE MCPHATTER, MAURICE SYMONETTE, LEROY WILLIAMS and

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 457

[ July 19, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Sandra Perlman , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE16009494

.

Robert Allen Tribble Jr., Stuart, pro se.

William D. Mueller, Elliot B. Kula, and W. Aaron Daniel of Kula &

Associates, P.A., Miami, for appellee JP Morgan Chase Bank.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, L EVINE and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned,the Chief Financial Officer of Gladstone Capital Corporation (the “Company”),hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009(“Form 10-Q”), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: February 1,2010

 

 
| /s/ Gresford  Gray       |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Gresford Gray            |   |
| Chief Financial  Officer |   |

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Complaint of BOCA GRANDE CLUB, INC., for exoneration from or limitation of liability as owner of a 16' Prindle catamaran sailing vessel hull no. SUR06214M82E, Plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alan POLACKWICH, Robert Polackwich, Jonathan Richards, Alphonsus J. Polackwich and Eleanor A. Polackwich, Defendants-Counterclaim plaintiffs, Stephanie Polackwich, as personal representative of the Estate of Jonathan Richards, Defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff-Crossclaim defendant, O’Day Corporation, Defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff-Crossclaim plaintiff-Crossclaim defendant, Florida Power & Light Company, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff-Crossclaim defendant-Crossclaim plaintiff-Counterclaim defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-2391.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 12, 1993.

Stuart C. Markman, Kynes & Markman, Tampa, FL, for appellant.

*607Jack C. Rinard, David F. Pope, Tampa, FL, for appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, CARNES, Circuit Judge, and BRIGHT*, Senior Circuit Judge.

*

 Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

In this case, the district court, invoking the settlement bar rule suggested by *Self v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.,*832 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir.1987), *cert. denied,*486 U.S. 1033, 108 S.Ct. 2017, 100 L.Ed.2d 604 (1988), rejected Florida Power & Light Company’s (FP & L’s) claim for contribution against Boca Grande Club, Inc. (Boca Grande) and gave Boca Grande summary judgment. After judgment was entered and this appeal was taken, *Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Tanker Robert Watt Miller,*957 F.2d 1575 (11th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 484, 121 L.Ed.2d 388 (1992), concluded that the issue of contribution was not before the court in *Self,*and held that, under maritime law, a tortfeasor is not precluded from seeking contribution from a joint tortfeasor who has settled. *Id.*at 1578, 1582-83. Accordingly, we must vacate the district court’s ruling and remand the case for further proceedings. In doing so, we do not pass on Boca Grande’s argument that we should affirm the district court’s summary judgement because, on the record before us, FP & L is not entitled to contribution.

VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings.