alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Kenneth L. Rice, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Life Sciences, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) [Not Applicable];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth 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 financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     DATE: November 14, 2006 /s/ Kenneth L. Rice, Jr.         **Kenneth L. Rice, Jr.**    **Executive Vice President Finance and Administration and**
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-14-0000916

SCWC-14-0000916
 12-MAY-2016 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI¥I

04:19 PM 

FLORENCIO E. DELA CRUZ, ANASTACIA A. DELA CRUZ,


and JENNIFER M. RESPECIO,


Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants,
 

vs.
 

IRENE B. QUEMADO, MARVIN QUEMADO, JR., and BRYAN T. HIGA,


Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(CAAP-14-0000916; CIV. NO. 08-1-1089)
 

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Application for Writ
 

of Certiorari, filed on April 1, 2016, is hereby accepted.
 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the determination of holding
 

oral argument will be subject to further order of this court.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai¥i, May 12, 2016.
 

Joseph P.H. Ahuna, Jr.

and David K. Ahuna 


for Petitioners 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald


/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
 

Johnaaron Murphy Jones

for Respondent Irene B.


Quemado 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna


/s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6464

DAMON L. DOYLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

A.J. PADULA, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (5:10-cv-03242-JMC)

Submitted: July 17, 2014 Decided: July 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Damon L. Doyle, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Damon L. Doyle seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. The 

district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction 

because our mandate had issued in Doyle’s appeal of the district 

court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition, the 

judgment he sought to vacate under Rule 60(b). The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent 

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that, although the district court’s reason for dismissing 

Doyle’s Rule 60(b) motion is erroneous, see Standard Oil Co. v. 

United States, 429 U.S. 17, 17 (1976) (holding that it is wellsettled that “the District Court may entertain a Rule 60(b) 

motion[,] without leave by this Court[,]” even if the appellate 

court has already decided an appeal of the complained-of 

judgment), an alternative procedural ground for dismissal 

renders this appeal futile. See Reid, 369 F.3d at 372 n.5. 

Doyle’s Rule 60(b) motion was tantamount to a second or 

successive § 2254 petition for which Doyle failed to obtain 

authorization to file. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 

200, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2003). 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT (99)

                       HIGH COUNTRY FINANCIAL CORPORATION

     Certification of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of High Country
Financial Corporation (the "Company") certify that the Annual Report on Form
10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-KSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 18, 2003                     /s/ John M. Brubaker
                                          -----------------------------
                                          John M. Brubaker
                                          Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 18, 2003                     /s/ David H. Harman
                                          -----------------------------
                                          David H. Harman
                                          Chief Financial Officer

*This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**





SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Gerald
      McIlhargey, President and Chief Executive Officer of St. Joseph, Inc., certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of St.
      Joseph, Inc., for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in this Annual
      Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of St. Joseph, Inc.




Date:
                April 11, 2007By:*/s/*Gerald McIlhargeyName:
                Gerald McIlhargeyTitle:
                President and Chief Executive Officer




27
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          52,082
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             315
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    119,585
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         209,916
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           210,097
<LOANS>                                        546,330
<ALLOWANCE>                                      8,826
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 960,930
<DEPOSITS>                                     655,933
<SHORT-TERM>                                   125,583
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             40,326
<LONG-TERM>                                     41,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,464
<COMMON>                                         8,304
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,920
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 960,930
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 24,922
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,877
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   462
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                36,261
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,087
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,634
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           23,627
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,111
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 18,554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,614
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,116
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,116
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.74<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71<F1>
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.83
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,031
<LOANS-PAST>                                       358
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     72
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,678
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,151
<RECOVERIES>                                       188
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                8,826
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,070
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,756
<FN>
<F1>Effective December 31, 1997, the Company adopted SFAS No. 128, "Earnings Per
Share." Accordingly, the Company has restated EPS for June 30, 1997 as follows:

     Basic     $.65
     Diluted   $.61
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### OLLIS v. STATE.

No. 26488.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1953.

*222No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty, appellant was convicted of the offense of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The punishment was assessed at a fine of $150 and 30 days in jail.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear regular.

The judgment is affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5663 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on mixtures of certain types of 

Triazin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2012 

Mr. BONNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on mixtures of 

certain types of Triazin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF CERTAIN TYPES OF TRIAZIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5663 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mixtures of 2-[4-[(2-Hydroxy-3-dodecyloxypropyl)- 

oxy]-2-hydroxyphenyl]-4,6- 

bis(2,4-dimethylphenyl)- 

1,3,5-triazine (CAS No. 

178905–31–2) and 2-[4- 

[(2-Hydroxy-3- 

tridecyloxypropyl)-oxy]-2- 

hydroxyphenyl]-4,6-bis(2,4- 

dimethylphenyl)-1,3,5-triazine (CAS No. 178905– 

32–3) (provided for in subheading 3812.30.60) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 277 

To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Sachuest Point Unit RI–04P, Easton Beach Unit RI–05P, Almy Pond 

Unit RI–06, and Hazards Beach Unit RI–07 in Rhode Island. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2013 

Mr. CICILLINE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Sachuest Point Unit RI–04P, Easton 

Beach Unit RI–05P, Almy Pond Unit RI–06, and Hazards Beach Unit RI–07 in Rhode Island. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 

4 BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The map subtitled ‘‘Sachuest 

6 Point Unit RI–04P, Easton Beach Unit RI–05P, Almy 

7 Pond Unit RI–06, Hazards Beach Unit RI–07’’, included 

8 in the set of maps entitled ‘‘John H. Chafee Coastal BarVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:03 Jan 17, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H277.IH H277

jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 277 IH

1 rier Resources System’’ referred to in section 4(a) of the 

2 Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) and 

3 relating to certain John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Re4 sources System units in Rhode Island, is hereby replaced 

5 by another map relating to the units entitled ‘‘John H. 

6 Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Sachuest Point 

7 Unit RI–04P, Easton Beach Unit RI–05P, Almy Pond 

8 Unit RI–06, and Hazards Beach Unit RI–07’’ and dated 

9 September 30, 2009. 

10 (b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior 

11 shall keep the replacement map referred to in subsection 

12 (a) on file and available for inspection in accordance with 

13 the provisions of section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Re14 sources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)). 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MOSES ALVAREZ,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00160

- CR

Appeal from

432nd District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 1126294D)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.

Antcliff, J., not participating
#### DOYLE v. STATE.

No. 26761.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1954.

Clay Coggins, Roby, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is burglary; the punishment, two years.

It was shown- that the appellant had been residing in the City of Aspermont for some time prior to the burglary in question.

Mr. Peacock testified that he closed and locked his grocery store in the City of As-permont on the night of December IS ; that when he arrived the next morning two windows had been broken, the store had been ransacked, two bottles of whiskey had been taken from his filing cabinet, thirteen silver dollars'and some small change were missing; and that it was obvious that someone had been eating at his meat counter because some of the cold meat and cheese were not in their accustomed places.

Sheriff Frazier testified that at 3:00 a. m. on December 16 he had an occasion to arrest appellant for being intoxicated in a public place in the City of Aspermont and that when he searched him he found thirteen silver dollars, some small change, and a few bills. The Sheriff further testified that later in the morning of the same day he was called to the Peacock grocery to investigate a burglary and found, among other things, on the meat counter a large piece of cheese bearing pronounced teeth marks.

Sheriff Frazier testified that during the course of the morning he and Ranger Paulk interrogated the appellant, who was still in jail, that they asked the appellant to bite into a piece of cheese which they offered him, and that he voluntarily did so.

The two pieces of cheese were taken to the Department of Public Safety at Austin, and Firearms Examiner Taylor testified that he had photographed both and had made plaster of parís impressions of each and gave his opinion from caliper measurements that both pieces of cheese had been bitten by the same set of teeth.

Dr. Kemp, a dentist of Haskell, testified that he had examined the plaster casts and the photographs and gave his opinion that all were made by the same set of teeth.

We find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

Appellant’s able attorney raises only one question in his brief. His contention is that when the appellant bit into the cheese at the request of the Sheriff that he made a confession as is contemplated by Article 727, C.C.P. and the statutory warning had not been given him. With this contention we cannot agree.

*780In Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 240 S.W.2d 310, , we held that Article 727 applied to verbal statements made by an accused under arrest and had no application to the taking of a specimen of his blood.

In Henson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., — S.W.2d —, we held that the making of a paraffin test on the hands of the accused while he was under arrest did not violate his constitutional rights against self-incrimination.

In fact, we fail to perceive any material distinction between the case at bar and the footprint and fingerprint cases so long recognized by this Court.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Gardner, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Same memorandum as in *People v Gardner*([appeal No. 1] 167 AD2d 937 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, La Mendola, J. —criminal possession of controlled substance, third degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Balio, JJ.
Exhibit 4.94



| |                       
| | ----------------------
| | R. Gordon Bloomquist  
| | 6206 Tiger Tail Dr. SW
| | Olympia, WA 98512     
| | U. S. A.              
| | 21 May 2007           



Brian Fairbank CEO

Nevada Geothermal |Power Co.

900-409 Granville St.

Vancouver BC

V6C 1T2



Re: Grump Geyser Proposal



Dear Brian,



Please accept this revised proposal for the work related to the Crump Geyser project as discussed with you and Kim last week



I propose to spend approximately one week traveling in Oregon attending meetings with BPA, DOGAMI, ODOE, the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council, the BLM office in Lakeview, local utilities and Ed Stabb. Time allowing I would also meet with Eugene Water and Electric and Portland General Electric and the BLM Portland office.



Upon completion of the trip I will write up notes from each of the meetings and make recommendations for the next steps to be undertaken.  This will include:

1.

Determining the potential market for power including a list of utility contacts

2.

Description of renewable power programs/policy (state and utility)

3.

Discussion on how to get power to market including transmission options

line sizes, potential obstacles, etc.

4.

State incentive programs including proposed RPS

5.

Well permitting and facility siting process





Budget for setting up meetings, attending meetings and write up.



7.5 days at 125.00/hour-$1,000/day

$7,500

Travel expenses including rental car $200.day

$1,000

Total, Approximately

$8,500





R. Gordon Bloomquist

Brian Fairbank
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

RE: Docket Number 2021 -CA -1587 

### Yvette David Pacaccio, Individually and as agent for Brendan Joseph David Versus - - Steven P. Hoover, Melanie P. Hoover, Edwin Hoover, and 

### Peggy Hoover 21st Judicial District Court Case #: 20200001195 Tangipahoa Parish



### On Application for Rehearing filed on 08/ 12/2022 byYvette David Pacaccio, et al Rehearing - 

# D `

C M ; -Z 1::--)

Elizabeth Wolfe