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

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Thomas E. Morell, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of D&E Communications,Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany 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 otherfinancial 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 forestablishing 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 oursupervision, 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 theregistrant’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 inthe 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 isreasonably 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 registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely 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’sinternal control over financial reporting.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): October 30, 2008
 QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
  California
    
    001-14758
    
    33-0476164(State or Other Jurisdiction 
of Incorporation)
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
 3260 Whipple Road, Union City, California
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    94587
(Zip Code)
 (510) 400-0700
 
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 2.02. Results of Operations and Financial ConditionItem 7.01 Regulation FD DisclosureItem 9.01. Financial Statements and ExhibitsSIGNATUREEXHIBIT INDEXEX-99.1    Table of Contents  
 Item 2.02. Results of Operations and Financial Condition.
   
 Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.
  
 Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
  Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. press release dated October 30, 2008.




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURE
  Date: November 3, 2008
    QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.By:
    /s/ Gary SawkaGary SawkaSenior Vice President, Finance and

Chief Financial Officer




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. press release dated October 30, 2008.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 271 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 271

       To ratify the States' right to limit congressional terms.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 24 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

   Mr. Brown introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To ratify the States' right to limit congressional terms.

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

SECTION 1. RATIFICATION OF STATES' RIGHTS.

    Each State may prescribe the number of terms a person may be 
elected or appointed to the Senate or House of Representatives.
                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HOVHANES VERMANYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71224

Agency No. A098-536-419

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Hovhanes Vermanyan, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of

Azerbaijan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his

application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against

FILED

JUL 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71224

Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards

governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha

v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review. 

With respect to past harm in Azerbaijan, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Vermanyan’s asylum

application’s omission of his only claim of personal mistreatment in Azerbaijan. 

See id. at 1039-40. With respect to future harm, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s conclusion that Vermanyan failed to establish a clear probability of

persecution in Azerbaijan on account of his Armenian ethnicity. See Tamang v.

Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010). Vermanyan now contends there

is a pattern or practice of persecution, and that he would be singled out as a

member of a disfavored group. We lack jurisdiction to consider these claims

because Vermanyan did not raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358

F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented

below). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Vermanyan’s withholding of

removal claim.
3 09-71224

Finally, we also lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of CAT relief

because Vermanyan did not raise it to the BIA. See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

              Procom FSC, Inc., a U.S. Virgin Islands Corporation
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-4266

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT EARL COLE, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-00-274) Submitted: August 28, 2001 Decided: September 11, 2001 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Earl Cole pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. On appeal, Cole alleges that the government breached an oral agreement. We do not find that the district court’s factual finding that the government did not breach the oral plea agreement was clearly erroneous. United States v. Conner , 930 F.2d 1073, 1076-77 (4th Cir. 1991). Thus, this claim fails. Although we grant Cole’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief, we find no merit to any of the claims raised therein. Accordingly, we affirm Cole’s conviction and sentence. 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.

AFFIRMED
### Rail Vehicles A**ccess A dvisory**  **Committee -**  **Meeting # 2**  **Januar y**  **9 and 10, 2014 Preliminary** 

**A genda**  **U.S. A ccess Board Conference Room**  **1331 F Street, N.W., suite 800 Washington, DC 20004**  **Thursda y,**  **January**

**9 (**  **10:00 a.m. –**  **5:00 p.m. )**  1. Administrative Matters a. A pproval of N ov 2013 Summary Meeting Minutes 2. Review of Committee Issues List 3. Educational Presentations a. Federal Railroad Administration
– Rail 101 b. Federal Railroad Administration
– Summary of PRIIA Next Generation Equipment Committee Accessibility Accommodat ions and Other Areas for Consideration c. Bombardier Transportation
– Toilet Module Footprint d. International Centre for Accessible Transportation
– Integrated Solutions to Accessible Coach Car Elements e. Talgo
– A Brief Description of the Three Distinct “Bi - Leve l” Passenger Car Designs Currently in Use on the US “General System” f. Wa shington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
– 7000 Series Rail Car Accessibility Features 4. Discussion on How to Resolve Issues 5. Public Comment Period (option 1
– if subcommittees meet) 6. Committee ( or Subcommittee ) Wo rk on Issues 7. Public Comment Period (option 2
– if subcommittees do not meet) 

### Friday**, January**

**10 (**  **9:00 a.m. -**  **3:00 p.m. )**  1. Administrati ve Matters 2. Committee (or Subcommittee) Wo rk 3. New Business 4. Public Comment Period 5. Adjourn 

### Note: Lunch will be on your own at a time each day favorable to the Committee work.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1863

To require the Secretary of the Army to acquire permanent flowage and

saturation easements over land that is located within the 10-year floodplain of the James River, South Dakota, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 11, 1996

Mr. DASCHLE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Army to acquire permanent

flowage and saturation easements over land that is located within the 10-year floodplain of the James River,

South Dakota, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS OVER LAND

4 NEAR JAMES RIVER, SOUTH DAKOTA.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army shall

6 acquire, from willing sellers, permanent flowage and satu7 ration easements over land that is located within the 10-

8 year floodplain of the James River, South Dakota.
2

•S 1863 IS

1 (b) SCOPE.—

2 (1) IN GENERAL.—The easements acquired by

3 the Secretary of the Army under subsection (a) shall

4 include the right, power, and privilege of the Federal

5 Government to submerge, overflow, percolate, and

6 saturate the surface and subsurface of the land and

7 such other terms and conditions as the Secretary of

8 the Army considers appropriate.

9 (2) HAYING AND GRAZING.—The Secretary of

10 the Army shall permit haying and grazing on the

11 land subject to the easements.

12 (c) PAYMENT.—In acquiring the easements under

13 subsection (a), the Secretary of the Army shall pay an

14 amount based on the unaffected fee value of the land sub15 ject to the easements. For the purpose of this subsection,

16 the unaffected fee value of the land is the value that the

17 land would have if the land were unaffected by rising

18 ground water and surface flooding associated with the

19 James River.

20 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There

21 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section

22 $40,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Æ
#### Lonnie KEAHEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30452.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 25, 1959.

Certiorari Denied Oct. 12, 1959.

See 80 S.Ct. 78.

*760Joe Burkett, San Antonio, for appellant.

Charles J. Lieck, Jr., Dist. Atty., Garland G. Wier, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the unlawful practice of medicine; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $500.

Officer Rosas of the San Antonio police testified that on the day in question he was engaged in investigating the unlawful practice of medicine; that he presented himself at the appellant’s office, saw a sign reading “Lonnie Keahey N. D.”; that as he entered the appellant, who was dressed in a white coat, identified himself as Dr. Keahey, asked him'what his trouble was; that he told the appellant he was having pains in his stomach; that the appellant told him he believed it was caused by stomach gases, directed him to be seated, mixed a potion from two jugs which were on a shelf and gave it to him to drink, along with two pills. At the conclusion of the treatment, the appellant told him that his charges for such services were $4, gave him a bottle of liquid on which he pasted a label containing instructions for taking, and told him to return within a week if he was not improved.

It was established that appellant had not registered as a medical doctor.

Pressy Castillo testified that a short time prior to the day charged in the information her mother took her to the appellant for treatment, that he gave her a shot and some pills to take, and that some three weeks thereafter she had an infection on her lip and again went to the appellant, that he again gave her a shot and some medicine, and that she paid him his $3 fee on each visit.

The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his own behalf.

We shall discuss the contentions advanced in the appellant’s brief and argument.

Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction because there is no showing that Rosas was actually ill, no showing as to what the *761fluid was that the appellant gave Rosas to drink or the contents of the pills which he gave him to swallow, and no showing that the appellant ever told the witness Castillo that he was a doctor. Appellant cites no authority to support such contention, nor are we aware of any.

He next complains of the court’s charge. There were no objections to the court’s charge, and the requested charge did not call the court’s attention to the defect in the charge which the appellant now asserts.

He complains of the refusal of the trial court to consider his amended motion for new trial in which he alleged that he was not permitted to prove that he was a licensed naturopath. Appellant overlooks the holding of this Court in De Hay v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 262, 254 S.W.2d 513, that such proof is immaterial to any issue in a case of this nature and does not constitute a defense.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
  
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Star e Media Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ghaby ("Gabriel") Nassar, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
  
 Dated: August 26, 2003
/s/ Gabriel NassarBy: Ghaby ("Gabriel") NassarIts: Chief Executive Officer 
 
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Star e Media Corporation and will be retained by Star e Media Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-10263 Summary Calendar

GERALD GLASSCOCK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CITY OF DALLAS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CV-366-H)

January 7, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM * :

Plaintiff-Appellant Gerald Glasscock, an employee of the

Dallas Water Utilities Department (DWU), alleged claims of

discrimination in violation of the American with Disabilities Act,

42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq ., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29

U.S.C. § 701 et seq

. against his employer. On September 16, 1994,2

Glasscock refused to take a drug/alcohol test ordered by Charles

Stringer, the DWU Division Manager. By letter dated October 14,

1994, Stringer terminated Glasscock for insurbordination because he

had refused to take the drug/alcohol test. On February 14, 1997,

the district court heard oral arguments for the parties and granted

summary judgment in favor of the City of Dallas.

After carefully reviewing the briefs, record excerpts, and

relevant portions of the record itself, we find no reversible

error. Assuming arguendo that Glasscock established a prima facie

case, he failed to show that the City of Dallas’s legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Glasscock was pretext for

discrimination. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 253 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 253

   To repeal certain prohibitions against political recommendations 
relating to Federal employment, to reenact certain provisions relating 
   to recommendations by Members of Congress, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 20 (legislative day, January 10), 1995

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal certain prohibitions against political recommendations 
relating to Federal employment, to reenact certain provisions relating 
   to recommendations by Members of Congress, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST POLITICAL RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO 
              FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 3303 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 3303. Competitive service; recommendations of Senators or 
              Representatives
    ``An individual concerned in examining an applicant for or 
appointing him in the competitive service may not receive or consider a 
recommendation of the applicant by a Senator or Representative, except 
as to the character or residence of the applicant.''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--(1) The table of sections 
for chapter 33 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by amending 
the item relating to section 3303 to read as follows:

``3303. competitive service; recommendations of Senators or 
                            Representatives.''.
    (2) Section 2302(b)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
to read as follows:
            ``(2) solicit or consider any recommendation or statement, 
        oral or written, with respect to any individual who requests or 
        is under consideration for any personnel action unless such 
        recommendation or statement is based on the personal knowledge 
        or records of the person furnishing it and consists of--
                    ``(A) an evaluation of the work performance, 
                ability, aptitude, or general qualifications of such 
                individual; or
                    ``(B) an evaluation of the character, loyalty, or 
                suitability of such individual;''.
    (c) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect 30 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```