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






CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   I, Paul S. Moller, certify that:
  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Moller International;
  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;
  4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
  a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;
  b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
  c)
presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
  5. The registrant's other certifying officers and 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and
  6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.\
   Date: 10/13/2011
 
 /s/ Paul S. Moller
 Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report of Drinks Americas Holdings, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jeffery Daub, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Jeffery Daub                                                  August 7, 2007
-----------------------
Jeffery Daub,
Chief Financial Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1251 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to provide that the United States 

Postal Service may not carry out a change-of-address request unless 

it first receives a signed confirmation that the request was in fact 

made by or on behalf of the addressee. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2009 

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

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to provide that 

the United States Postal Service may not carry out a 

change-of-address request unless it first receives a signed 

confirmation that the request was in fact made by or 

on behalf of the addressee. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD RELATING TO CER4 TAIN CHANGE-OF-ADDRESS REQUESTS. 

5 Section 404 of title 39, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1251 IH

1 ‘‘(f) Effective no later than 3 months after the date 

2 of the enactment of this subsection, the Postal Service 

3 shall implement procedures to ensure that no permanent 

4 change-of-address request shall be carried out unless the 

5 Postal Service first receives signed confirmation from the 

6 addressee (or duly authorized agent thereof) that the re7 quest was in fact made by (or on behalf of) such ad8 dressee.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### CHERRY v. STATE.

No. 14832.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 10, 1932.

A. T. Folsom, of Wink, for appellant.

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

MORROW, P. J.

The conviction is for simple assault; penalty assessed at a fine of $5.

The record is void of a statement of facts and bills of exception. No irregularity has been perceived in the procedure. Complaints of the insufficiency of the evidence and rulings of the court upon the admission or rejection of evidence are not available on appeal, in the absence of a statement showing the evidence .that was before the court, either by bills of exception or statement of facts.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
     VICUNA, INC. December 31, 1996 financial statements and is
     qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000873540
<NAME>                        VICUNA, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0




</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOANNE JORDAN, 

Case No. 5D21-2104

LT Case No. 2020-CA-109

Appellant, 

v.

WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., 

A FLORIDA PROFIT COMPANY, 

Appellee. 

______________________________/ 

Decision filed July 12, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Putnam County, 

Kenneth James Janesk, Judge.

Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan,

Jacksonville, for Appellant. 

Joseph B. Stokes, III, and Angelica 

L. Inclan, of Saalfield Shad, P.A.,

Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., SASSO and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
### Supreme Court ofthe United States Office ofthe Clerk 

### Washington, DC 20543-0001 Scott S. Harris Clerk ofthe Court 

### November 24, 2015 (202)479-3011 Clerk 

### Court ofCriminal Appeals ofTexas P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Re: Anthony Whitney Norman v. Texas No. 15-7116 (Your No. WR-76, 389-08) Dear Clerk: The petition for a writ ofcertiorari in the above entitled case was filed on 

### November 17, 2015 and placed on the docket November 24, 2015 as No. 15-7116. Sincerely, Scott S. Harris, Clerk by ott».
Redmond K. Barnes Case Analyst


### RECEIVED IN COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS DEC 01 2015 

## AbelAcosta5Clerk
EXHIBIT 32





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





---






EXHIBIT 32.1





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





AS ADOPTED PURSUANT  TO





SECTION 906 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In  connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CollaGenex  Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  Report), the undersigned, Colin W. Stewart, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  and Nancy C. Broadbent, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby  certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)          The  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)          The  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








|                         | /s/ COLIN W. STEWART      
|------------------------ | --------------------------
|                         |                           
|Dated: August    9, 2005 | Colin W.    Stewart       
|                         | Chief    Executive Officer
|                         |                           
|                         | /s/ NANCY C. BROADBENT    
|                         |                           
|Dated:    August 9, 2005 | Nancy C.    Broadbent     
|                         | Chief    Financial Officer




---
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1948 

To abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes as a defense in inter 

partes review of patents. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2017 

Mrs. MCCASKILL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes as a 

defense in inter partes review of patents. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ABROGATION OF TRIBAL IMMUNITY IN CER4 TAIN PATENT CLAIMS. 

5 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Indian 

6 tribe’’ has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the 

7 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703). 

8 (b) ABROGATION OF IMMUNITY FOR PURPOSES OF

9 INTER PARTES REVIEW.—Notwithstanding any other pro10 vision of law, an Indian tribe may not assert sovereign 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1948 IS

1 immunity as a defense in a review that is conducted under 

2 chapter 31 of title 35, United States Code. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
#### Kathleen Barr, Appellant, v Mark R. Barr, Respondent.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Duskas, J.), entered January 31, 1990 in St. Lawrence County, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his counterclaim for a divorce.

The parties were married in 1981 and have two children. They separated and signed a separation agreement in 1987. Thereafter, plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce alleging, *inter alia,*cruel and inhuman treatment and adultery based on alleged sexual abuse of the parties’ daughter by defendant, who counterclaimed for a divorce based on the parties living separate and apart for at least one year and his substantial performance of the terms and conditions of the separation agreement. Defendant moved for summary judgment and plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment, opposing defendant’s motion on the grounds that the separation agreement never was filed with the County Clerk and that defendant failed to substantially perform under the separation agreement. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion and denied plaintiff’s cross motion. Plaintiff appeals.

A conversion divorce, as granted by Supreme Court, requires that the parties live separate and apart for at least one year pursuant to a written separation agreement which has been filed with a specified county clerk and the terms of which have been substantially performed *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 170 [6]). Here, defendant does not challenge plaintiffs claim that the separation agreement has not been filed with the appropriate county clerk. Although this defect may be subject to cure by filing nunc pro tunc *(see,*Scheinkman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law C170:15, at 621-622), it appears that questions of fact exist concerning defendant’s substantial *887compliance with the separation agreement. Indeed, despite Supreme Court’s award of summary judgment to defendant, it has withheld final judgment until certain factual issues as alleged by plaintiff are resolved. Under such circumstances, we believe that Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment for a conversion divorce.

Order modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as granted defendant’s motion; motion denied; and, as so modified, affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
/**
 * @file
 * Defines a backwards-compatible shim for the jQuery UI :tabbable selector.
 */

(($, Drupal, { isTabbable }) => {
  $.extend($.expr[':'], {
    tabbable(element) {
      Drupal.deprecationError({
        message:
          'The :tabbable selector is deprecated in Drupal 9.2.0 and will be removed in Drupal 11.0.0. Use the core/tabbable library instead. See https://www.drupal.org/node/3183730',
      });

      return isTabbable(element);
    },
  });
})(jQuery, Drupal, window.tabbable);
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Titanium  Metals  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2004 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (the  "Quarterly
Report"),  we, J.  Landis  Martin,  Chairman of the Board,  President  and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Bruce P. Inglis, Vice President - Finance,
Corporate Controller and Treasure of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

     1.   the Quarterly  Report fully complies with the  requirements of section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   the information  contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
          all  material  respects,   the  financial   condition  and  result  of
          operations of the Company




November 5, 2004


/s/ J. Landis Martin
--------------------------------
J. Landis Martin
Chairman of the Board, President
   and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Bruce P. Inglis
-----------------------------------
Bruce P. Inglis
Vice President - Finance, Corporate
   Controller and Treasurer




Note:The  certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
     "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
     as  amended,  or  otherwise  subject to the  liabilities  of that  Section.
     Registration  Statements or other  documents  filed with the Securities and
     Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference, except
     as otherwise expressly stated in such filing.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1927 

To amend section 455(m) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 in order 

to allow adjunct faculty members to qualify for public service loan forgiveness. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2017 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. FRANKEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend section 455(m) of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 in order to allow adjunct faculty members to qualify for public service loan forgiveness. 

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 ‘‘Adjunct Faculty Loan 

5 Fairness Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR ADJUNCT FACULTY. 

7 Section 455(m)(3)(B)(ii) of the Higher Education 

8 Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(m)(3)(B)(ii)) is amended— 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1927 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘teaching as’’ and inserting the 

2 following: ‘‘teaching— 

3 ‘‘(I) as’’; 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘, foreign language faculty, and 

5 part-time faculty at community colleges), as deter6 mined by the Secretary.’’ and inserting ‘‘and foreign 

7 language faculty), as determined by the Secretary; 

8 or’’; and 

9 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(II) as a part-time faculty mem11 ber or instructor who— 

12 ‘‘(aa) teaches not less than 

13 1 course at an institution of 

14 higher education (as defined in 

15 section 101(a)), a postsecondary 

16 vocational institution (as defined 

17 in section 102(c)), or a Tribal 

18 College or University (as defined 

19 in section 316(b)); and 

20 ‘‘(bb) is not employed on a 

21 full-time basis by any other em22 ployer.’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,863
<SECURITIES>                                     7,037
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,080
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,240
<PP&E>                                           6,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,219)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,887
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,617
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,303
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,393
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,894)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,894)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,894)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
N: 673409 E: 1242911.91

N: 667787.47 E: 1242276.8

N: 666933.49 E: 1242558.4 N: 667947.55 E: 1247834.49

N: 667695.57 E: 1247811.84 N: 673228.21 E: 1243223.95

N: 662710.507313 E: 1234455.18919 N: 662120.543751 E: 1252189.54097 N: 684418.829793 E: 1235186.19391 N: 683829.453751 E: 1252902.88479

N: 667694.15 E: 1248058.87 N: 667944.01 E: 1248058.74 N: 673113.04 E: 1243308.87 N: 673267.45 E: 1243270.27 N: 673538.32 E: 1243066.96

N: 673021.04 E: 1243204.65

N: 667330.75 E: 1242852.01 N: 667496.84 E: 1242812.29 N: 667749.88 E: 1242611.11

N: 667158.53 E: 1242265.75



# Figure 1

EAB Base Boundary Operable Units and Other Areas of Concern

Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota 

### 0 2,0004,000 1,000 Feet 

# 1 Legend Installation Boundary Operable Units (OU's) and Other Areas of Concern (AOC's) To Be Deleted Building Airfield Installation Road 

# Ó Ó

Ó Ó

Date: June 10, 2011 Source: Notice Of Intent June 2006 

# OU-1 Gateway Lake Ash AOC Pride Hangar AOC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TERRANCE TERRELL HOPSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 900 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6366

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RAUL ARMANDO PILOTO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-203-P, CA-97-194-P)

Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: October 23, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raul Armando Piloto, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A.§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Piloto, Nos. CR-92-203-P; CA-97-194-P

(W.D.N.C. Dec. 31, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED