alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Bruce D. Horn, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Oplink Communications, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;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 of operationsand 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 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 information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;(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 financing reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: September 23, 2005                            /s/ Bruce D. Horn   Bruce D. Horn   Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
31.1

Rule 13a-14(a) /
15a-14(a)Certification of Chief Executive Officer




I, Gary E. Ban, certify that:

1.            
I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2005, of  Summus, Inc.  (“Summus”);

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 Summus as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report.

4.            
Summus’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Summus 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 Summus, 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)              
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles.

(c)               
Evaluated the effectiveness of Summus’ disclosure control’s 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

(d)               
Disclosed in this report any change in Summus’ internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during Summus’ most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Summus’
internal control over financial reporting; and

5.            
Summus’ other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Summus’ auditors and
the audit committee of Summus’ board of directors:

(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 Summus’ 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 Summus’ internal control over financial
reporting.



Date:   May 13,
2005

_______/s/ Gary E.
BanGary E. BanChief Executive Officer
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2739 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to add certain counties to the 

definition of ‘‘Appalachian region’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 

Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself and Mr. HAGERTY) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend title 40, United States Code, to add certain 

counties to the definition of ‘‘Appalachian region’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF APPALACHIAN REGION. 

4 Section 14102(a)(1)(K) of title 40, United States 

5 Code, is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘Hickman, Humphreys,’’ after 

7 ‘‘Hawkins,’’; and 

8 (2) by inserting ‘‘Perry,’’ after ‘‘Overton,’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 30, 2016

d1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

153087

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153087

COA: 329167

Saginaw CC: 12-037249-FH

MARK DESHAWN JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
# C_2016015EN.01000101.xml

| 16.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 January 2016

(2016/C 15/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0914 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,80 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4631 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,76150 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3474 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0951 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6085 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,35 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4129 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5375 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3208 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5895 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5849 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5057 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7103 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5735 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 328,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,2254 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1888 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6655 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 268,11 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8281 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,281 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 84,6924 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,705 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4139 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,7876 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,9860 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0914

JPY

Japanese yen

127,80

DKK

Danish krone

7,4631

GBP

Pound sterling

0,76150

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3474

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0951

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6085

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,35

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4129

RON

Romanian leu

4,5375

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3208

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5895

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5849

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5057

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7103

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5735

KRW

South Korean won

1 328,97

ZAR

South African rand

18,2254

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1888

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6655

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 268,11

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8281

PHP

Philippine peso

52,281

RUB

Russian rouble

84,6924

THB

Thai baht

39,705

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4139

MXN

Mexican peso

19,7876

INR

Indian rupee

73,9860

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
NO. 07-07-0412-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

______________________________

JOSE MARIA LOPEZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

NO. 98968; HONORABLE JOHN B. STEVENS, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Jose Maria Lopez, appeals his conviction for the offense of aggravated

sexual assault of a child and punishment assessed by the same jury of 99 years

confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We

affirm.

Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion

to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion,
 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client 1

a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro

se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.

2

the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-

45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel

has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial

court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy

of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right

to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510

(Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se

response. Appellant has not filed a response.

By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal,

but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an

independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable

grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346,

102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We

have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s

judgment is affirmed.1

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 24

- 10406 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **James L. Rudzavice,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07

- CR

- 138

- 1

**______________________________** Before **Haynes, Higginson,** and **Douglas,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** James L. Rudzavice, federal prisoner # 36844

- 177 , appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He argues that the district court failed to explain why his sentence is longer than the sentences imposed on similar defendants with more aggravating factors . He further faults the district court for “ brush [ing]

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 17, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 24-10406 Document: 44-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2024No. 24

- 10406

2 aside ” the facts he presented as “ untruthful ” and for failing to address every claim raised in his motion , and he maintains that his “unusually long” sentence and his postconviction conduct constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. Additionally, Rudzavice contends that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to lower his sentence when (i) he would face a lower sentence under “the new amendments” if he were sentenced today; (ii) he “has not received a shot in over ten years”; (iii) the Bureau of Prisons ( BOP ) “has confidence in [him] to have him monitor: suicide watch”; and (iv) the BOP l abels him as “low recidivism.”
We review the denial for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693

- 94 (5th Cir. 2020). Here, t he district court conducted an independent review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and determined that Rudzavice was not entitled to relief. Rudzavice’s disagreement with the balancing of those factors is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See id. at 694. Moreover, the district court’s analysis was thorough and “relied upon the record, while making clear that [the
court ] considered [Rudzavice’s] arguments and [took] account of the § 3553(a) factors.” Chavez

- Meza v. United States , 585 U.S. 109, 116 (2018). Accordingly, the reasons provided are sufficient. See id. Because the district court’s independent consideration of the § 3553(a) factors provides a sufficient basis for affirmance, we need not consider whether the district court erred in determining that Rudzavice failed to show extraordinary and compelling reas ons warranting relief. See United States v. Jackson , 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022). The order of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. All outstanding motions are **DENIED**

. Case: 24-10406 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2024
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 30, 2016

a1121

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

152826

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152826

COA: 329582

Calhoun CC: 03-003376-FC

SHAWN ANTHONY YOUNG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 5, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
Exhibit 23.1
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  Form
    
    DescriptionS-8
    
    National-Oilwell, Inc. Stock Award and Long Term Incentive Plan, Value Appreciation and Incentive Plan A
and Value Appreciation and Incentive Plan B (No. 333-15859)S-8
    
    National-Oilwell Retirement and Thrift Plan (No. 333-36359)S-8
    
    Post Effective Amendment No. 3 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on Form S-8 pertaining to
the Dreco Energy Services Ltd. Amended and Restated 1989 Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan, as amended,
and Employment and Compensation Arrangements Pursuant to Private Stock Option Agreements (No. 333-21191)S-8
    
    Post Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8 to Registration Statement on Form S-4 pertaining to the IRI
International Corporation Equity Incentive Plan (No. 333-36644)S-8
    
    National Oilwell Varco, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan (No. 333-123310)S-8
    
    National Oilwell Varco, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (No. 333-123301)S-8
    
    Varco International, Inc. 2003 Equity Participation Plan; Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, as
amended; Varco International, Inc. 1990 Stock Option Plan; 1994 Directors Stock Option Plan; Varco
International, Inc. 401(k)/Profit Sharing Plan (No. 333-123287)S-8
    
    Varco International, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan (No. 333-123286)S-8
    
    National-Oilwell, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Award and Long-Term Incentive Stock Plan (No. 333-118721)S-4
    
    Registration Statement on Form S-4 for the registration of shares of common stock in conjunction with the
merger with Varco International, Inc. (No. 333-119071)
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Nazzareno Paciotti, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Thinking Tools, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:

(i) The Company's accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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





/s/ N E Paciotti
------------------------
Nazzareno Paciotti
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer



Dated:  April 14, 2004
THI RD DI VI SI ON
M I LLER, J.

, R A Y and B RA N CH, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s /

Januar y 30, 2015



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 2 A1 62 2 . HARGIS v . THE STATE.

B R A N C H , J u d g e.

In Ha r g is v. S t a t e , 3 1 9 Ga. Ap p

. 4 32 (7 3 5 SE2 d 9 1 ) (2 0 1 2 ), t h i s Co u rt g ran t ed

ap p el l an t An t h o n y H arg i s a n ew t ri al co n cern i ng h i s co nv i ct i o n fo r at t em p t ed

m an u fact u re o f m et h am

p h et am i n e an d o t her cri m es

. Id

. at 4 3 9 (2 ). In S t a t e v. Ha r gi s ,

2 9 4 Ga. 81 8 (7 5 6 SE2 d 5 2 9 ) (2 0 1 4 ), t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo r g i a r e v e r s ed t h i s

Co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n an d rem an ded t h e cas e t o t h is Co u rt

. Id . at 82 7

. Aft er t h e Su p rem e

Co u rt i s s u ed i t s d eci s i o n , H arg i s fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r reco n s i d erat i o n , b u t the n wi t h d rew

t h at m ot i o n , s t at i n g as h e d i d s o t h at h e “ wai v e[d ] an y i s s u es on rem an d i n t h e Co u rt

o f Ap p eal s .” Th e St at e m o v ed t h e Su p rem e Co u rt t o i n cl u de H arg i s’ s m o t i o n s i n t h e

ap p el l at e reco rd

, an d t h e Su p rem e Co u rt g ran t ed t h e St at e’ s m o t i o n

. Th e Su p rem e

Co u rt t h en rem an d ed t h e cas e t o t h i s Co urt

.W e hereb y ad o p t t h e Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s deci s i o n a s o u r o wn , an d we d eem

ab an do n ed t h o s e i s s u es rai s ed i n Harg i s ’ s i n i t ial b ri ef t o t h i s Co u rt b u t l eft u n d eci d ed

p e n d i n g t h e o ut co m e o f h i s ap p eal t o th e Su prem e Co u rt

. Th e St at e’ s m o t i o n to

d i s m i s s th i s ap p eal i s d en i ed

. See O’Kel l ey v. Ha yes , 1 3 2 Ga. A pp

. 1 3 4 (1 ) (2 0 7 SE2 d

6 4 1 ) (1 9 7 4 ) (ab an d o n m en t o f en u m erat ed erro rs i s n ot g ro u n ds fo r d i s m i s s al o f an

ap p eal ). Th e t ri al co u rt ’ s ju d gm en t i s affi rm ed

.

Ju d g men t a f f i r m ed . Mi l l er

, P. J., a n d

Ra y, J., co n cu r

.

2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40879

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GREGORIO CASTORENA-HERNANDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-332-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Gregorio CastorenaHernandez raises an argument that is foreclosed by Unites States v. MoralesMota, 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir. 2013), which rejected the argument that the 

Texas offense of “burglary of a habitation” is broader than the generic, 

contemporary definition of “burglary of a dwelling” under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because it defines the “owner” of a habitation as a person 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40879 Document: 00513242125 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
No. 14-40879

2

with a “greater right to possession of the property than the actor.” Accordingly, 

the motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-40879 Document: 00513242125 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015