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

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

I, C. Patrick Machado, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Medivation, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business
issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: November 14, 2007



|                                
|--------------------------------
|/s/ C. Patrick Machado          
|Name: C. Patrick Machado        
|Title: Senior Vice President and
|Chief Financial Officer
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1856-20

MICHAEL A. FARINELLA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

METLIFE, INC., METLIFE

GROUP, INC., RICHARD

KARL ERHARDT, EDMUND

HEIN MOORE, KINGMIN

CHEUNG, MICHAEL G. 

UPTON, SAJEEV NARAYANAN, 

SACHIN SHAH, PAGE STEELE 

and PIA ALMEIDA,

Defendants-Respondents.

_____________________________

Submitted June 21, 2021 – Decided July 6, 2021

Before Judges Fisher and Moynihan.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-5998-19.

McMoran, O'Connor, Bramley & Burns, P.C., attorneys 

for appellants (Bruce P. McMoran and Michael F. 

O'Connor, on the briefs).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-1856-20

Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, P.C., attorneys for respondents 

(Kristine V. Ryan, Allison J. Vogel and Punam P. 

Alam, on the briefs).

PER CURIAM

The parties having entered into a stipulation of dismissal, the interlocutory 

appeal is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2146 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2146

   To extend the full Federal medical assistance percentage to urban 
                         Indian organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2017

  Mr. Udall (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Merkley, Ms. 
   Warren, Ms. Harris, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Markey) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the full Federal medical assistance percentage to urban 
                         Indian organizations.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Urban Indian Health Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF FULL FEDERAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PERCENTAGE TO 
              URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS.

    Section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is 
amended by striking ``Indian Health Care Improvement Act)'' and 
inserting ``Indian Health Care Improvement Act) or through an Urban 
Indian organization (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Health Care 
Improvement Act) pursuant to a grant or contract with the Indian Health 
Service under title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act''.
                                 <all>
```
ECEI' 1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

MAY 1 8 ; :J 

HEARING L,,~."' ·~-T In The Matter Of: ) 

NORTHEASTERN AVIATION 

CORPORATION 

) DocketNo. FAA-2014-0812 

) 

) 

) Case No. 2011EA110028 

Respondent ) Assigned: Judge J.E. Sullivan 

RESPONDENT'S 26(a)(l)(Al INITIAL DISCLOSURES 

Respondent, by counsel, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26( a)(1 )(A), makes the 

following initial disclosures: 

(i) Individuals Likely to Have Discoverable Information: 

I. Peter Montemurro 

Northeastern Aviation Corporation 

Republic Airport 

8200 Republic Airport #8 

Farmingdale, NY 11735 

2. Individuals Identified in Northeastern Work Orders 

(ii) Documents and Things: 

1. Northeastern General Maintenance Manual 

2. Northeastern Airworthiness Releases 

3. Northeastern Company Maintenance Bulletins 

4. Northeastern Flight Logs 

5. Northeastern Discrepancy Work Sheets and Work Orders 

6. Response to FAA in Response to Proposed Penalty and Supplemental 

Response 

(iii) Damages Computation: 

To be responded to by Complainant. Respondent denies that any penalty is appropriate. 
By: 

Respectfully submitted, 

Edward J. Longosz, II 

Evelyn D. Sahr 

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1200 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone: 202-659-6619 

Facsimile: 202-659-6699 

E-mail: elongosz@eckertseamans.com 

2 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this I S'~ay of May, 2015, copies of the foregoing Respondent's 

26(a)(l)(A) Initial Disclosures was sent by e-mail and Federal Express as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Mr. Zachary M. Berman 

Complainant's Counsel 

Office of Regional Counsel, Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

Tel: 718-553-3273 

Fax: 718-995-5699 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

US. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Tel: 202-366-6941 

Fax: 202-366-7537 

3
#### LOCKWOOD v. STATE.

No. 20362.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 26, 1939.

Byron R. Conwell, of Houston, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of theft, and assessed a penalty of ten years in the penitentiary.

The facts show the theft of an automobile, and the charge of the court correctly gave the law to the jury. There are no bills of exception in the record. We do find, however, in the amended motion for a new trial, appended thereto, two affidavits that attempt to raise the issue of insanity, which issue was not raised in any way in the trial. We also note that no testimony appears in the record to have been offered on the hearing of this motion.

In our opinion, the affidavits themselves are insufficient to raise the issue properly. One of the affidavits merely states that in the opinion of the affiant the appellant was not a rational person, and it was apparent to the affiant that appellant "was not a person of balanced mind”. The second affidavit, made by appellant’s father, makes the flat statement: “That I am convinced my son is insane. That this condition of his mentality has been brought as a result of the various and sundry accidents he has encountered during the past years in living a life that has been devoid of self-restraint.” It is not shown that the affiant is an expert on the *question*of insanity, and it is not further shown other than above stated upon what facts the witness draws his conclusion relative to the insanity of appellant; nothing fur*453ther appears other than that the affiant was convinced that his son was insane, no reason being- given for such conviction of affiant, and under the lack of any facts given, either in the affidavits or on the hearing of the motion, we think the court was correct in overruling the motion for a new trial.

The facts are sufficient to show the theft of an automobile by appellant, and the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 7099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3137]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Section 5a Application No. 9 (Amendment No. 8)]


Application of the National Motor Bus Traffic Association, Inc., 
for Extended Approval of its Conformed Agreement

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) seeks comments on 
whether the Board should approve the application of the National Motor 
Bus Traffic Association, Inc. (NBTA), for extended approval of its rate 
bureau agreement.

DATES: Opening comments are due March 13, 2000. Reply comments are due 
March 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10 copies of comments and replies, 
referring to ``Sec. 5a Application No. 9 (Amendment No. 8),'' to: 
Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control 
Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565-1600. 
[TDD for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In our decision and notice issued today in 
EC-MAC Motor Carriers Service Association, Inc., et al., Section 5a 
Application No. 118 (Sub-No. 2), et al. (EC-MAC) (which are available 
on the Board's website at ``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV''), we expressed concern 
with the way in which motor freight carrier rate bureaus collectively 
set ``benchmark'' class rates, from which discount rates may be offered 
to many, but not all, shippers. We indicated our intent to approve the 
rate bureau agreements of the motor freight bureaus only if class rates 
were reduced to market-based levels, and we requested public input on 
ways in which to achieve our objective.
    NBTA has asked to have its agreement approved. It states that, 
while it does file tariffs on behalf of its member carriers, its 
members express their rates in dollars and cents, and not as discounts 
off of collectively-established bureau rates. Thus, it states that the 
issues over which we expressed concern in the EC-MAC proceeding should 
not be factors in our consideration of its agreement.
    We tend to agree with NBTA that the issues about which we raised 
concerns in EC-MAC should not be of concern here. Nonetheless, any 
person who believes that we should initiate further proceedings of the 
sort that we are pursuing in EC-MAC, or that the agreement should be 
disapproved or conditioned for other reasons may file comments.

    Decided: February 4, 2000.
    By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Burkes, and 
Commissioner Clyburn.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary,
[FR Doc. 00-3137 Filed 2-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
S. 2273 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen 

An Act 

To extend the period during which vessels that are shorter than 79 feet in length 

and fishing vessels are not required to have a permit for discharges incidental 

to the normal operation of the vessel. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM. 

Section 2(a) of Public Law 110–299 (33 U.S.C. 1342 note) is 

amended by striking ‘‘December 18, 2017’’ and inserting ‘‘January 

19, 2018’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
(function ($) {
  Drupal.behaviors.superLoginPWBehavior = {
    attach: function (context, settings) {
        var showMessages = drupalSettings.show_messages;
        if (!showMessages) {
            $(".messages").prependTo("#user-login-form");
            $(".alert").prependTo("#user-login-form");
        }     
    }
  };
})(jQuery);
#### THOMAS v. MURPHY et al.

No. 1562-6829.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

April 17, 1935.

Weslow, Beadle & Mooney, of Houston, for plaintiff in error.

Sewell, Taylor, Morris & Garwood, Fulbright, Crooker & Freeman, Lester Settegast, and R. E. Seagler, all of Houston, for defendants in. error.

SMEDLEY, Commissioner.

This case is ruled by Independent Life Insurance Company of America v. Work (Tex. Sup.) 77 S.W.(2d) 1036, Dallas Storage & Warehouse Co. v. Taylor (Tex. Sup.) 77 S.W. (2d) 1031, and Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Texas v. Wilkirson (Tex. Sup.) 77 S.W.(2d) 1035, construing subdivisions 28, 29, and 30 of article 2092, Revised Civil Statutes of 1925, after the amendment of subdivision 28 by chapter 70, Acts 5th Called Sess. 41st Leg. 1930 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 2092, subd. 28).

Judgment was rendered in the trial court on December 13, 1933, against plaintiff in error, and in favor of defendants in error. On December 21, 1933, plaintiff in error filed his motion for new trial, which was not presented to the court until January 29, 1934, when it was overruled by the court because presented more than thirty days after its filing. Plaintiff .in error filed his appeal bond on February 13, 1934. The Court of Civil Appeals dismissed the appeal. 70 S.W.(2d) 1020.

The motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law at the expiration of thirty days from December 21, 1933, the date of As filing, that is on January 20, 1934. The appeal bond was filed, as required by subdivision 31 of article 2092, within thirty days after the date last named. The appeal should not have been dismissed.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals dismissing the appeal is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1112 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the incentives 

for E–85 fuel vehicle refueling property. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2009 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the incentives for E–85 fuel vehicle refueling property. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘E–85 Investment Act 

5 of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL 

7 VEHICLE REFUELING PROPERTY RELATING 

8 TO E–85. 

9 (a) INCREASE IN CREDIT PERCENTAGE.—Subsection 

10 (a) of section 30C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1112 IH

1 (relating to credit allowed) is amended by inserting ‘‘(75 

2 percent in the case of property relating to ethanol de3 scribed in subsection (c)(2)(A))’’ after ‘‘30 percent’’. 

4 (b) PHASEOUT OF CREDIT PERCENTAGE.—Sub5 section (b) of section 30C of such Code (relating to limita6 tion) is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(b) LIMITATIONS.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The credit allowed under 

9 subsection (a) with respect to any alternative fuel 

10 vehicle refueling property shall not exceed— 

11 ‘‘(A) $30,000 in the case of a property of 

12 a character subject to an allowance for depre13 ciation, and 

14 ‘‘(B) $1,000 in any other case. 

15 ‘‘(2) PHASEOUT OF CREDIT RELATING TO ETH16 ANOL.—In the case of any qualified alternative fuel 

17 vehicle refueling property relating to ethanol de18 scribed in subsection (c)(2)(A) placed in service after 

19 December 31, 2012, the limit otherwise applicable 

20 under paragraph (1) shall be reduced by— 

21 ‘‘(A) 25 percent in the case of any alter22 native fuel vehicle refueling property placed in 

23 service in calendar year 2013, and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1112 IH

1 ‘‘(B) 50 percent in the case of any alter2 native fuel vehicle refueling property placed in 

3 service after calendar year 2014.’’. 

4 (c) EXTENSION OF CREDIT.—Subsection (g) of sec5 tion 30C of such Code (relating to termination) is amend6 ed by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (1), by re7 designating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3), and by in8 serting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(2) in the case of property relating to ethanol, 

10 after December 31, 2016, and’’. 

11 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

13 the date of the enactment of this Act in taxable years end14 ing after such date. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3151]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Monday, February 14, 2000, 11:30 a.m.

LOCATION: Room 410, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS:  
Closed to the Public.

Matter to be Considered:
Compliance Operational Matter (OS# 5756)
    The Commission and staff will discuss a compliance operational 
matter.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the 
Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-0800.

    Dated: February 7, 2000.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-3151 Filed 2-7-00; 2:58 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
Douglas Pabst, Team Leader Dredged Material Management Team Division ofEnvironmental Planning and Protection Region 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency 290 Broadway New York, NY 10007-1866

DearMr. Pabst: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (727) 824-5317, FAX (727) 824-5300 http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/

May 13,2005 F/SER4:LC

TheNOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed your staffs letter dated April22, 2005, regarding the proposed modification to the designations ofthe ocean dredged material disposal sites (ODMDS) around Puerto Rico that are being contemplatedbythe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has requested our concurrence that the proposed modification is not likelyto result in the destruction or adverse modification of categories ofessential fish habitat (EFH) designated bythe Caribbean FisheryManagement Council pursuant to the requirements ofthe Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act.)

Based on ourreview ofthe information included in your letter and a conversationwith a member ofyour staffon April 1, 2005, the proposed modification would allow disposal ofdredged material from harbors otherthan those for which the ODMDS were designated. Specifically, it is anticipated that the use ofthe ODMDS for Yabucoa Harborwould increase as the need for dredging arises in Fajardo, Ceiba orthe U.S. Virgin Islands. The Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Yabucoa Harbor ODI'v1DS was recentlyrevised inresponse to EFH conservation recommendations provided bythe NMFS. The final plan was modified to incorporate detailed monitoring requirements to minimize the impacts ofdredged material disposal on EFH. The SMMP.for the Ponce Harbor ODMDS was similarlymodified in response to NMFS EFH conservation recommendations. However, the NMFS remains concerned about the risks to EFH from sediment-ladenbarges transporting dredged material between the dredging sites and the ODMDS especiallygiven the proposed rule change would result in additional transport routes to each ODMDS. While the NMFS understands that the EPA cannotpredict all future uses ofthe ODMDS, we recommend the mapping ofEFHbetween areas where the EPA anticipates dredging will occur and the likely ODMDS that will be used for dredged material disposal. This mapping will facilitate future EFH consultations required by Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for permits and authorizations ofdredged material disposal at any of theODMDS.Thank you for the opportunityto provide comments ontheproposedrule change. Questions shouldbe addressed to the attention ofDr. Lisamarie Carrubba in ourPuerto Rico Field Office at (787) 851-3700.

i esM. Croom Assistant Regional Administrator Habitat Conservation Division