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

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Daniel A. France, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2004 of Kushi Natural Foods Corp.;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 registrant 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 registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 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 internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial; and

         (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date:    August 13, 2004               /s/ DANIEL A. FRANCE
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Daniel A. France, Treasurer
1

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HECTOR ENRIQUE ASTORGA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00285-CR

Appeal from the

409th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20100D03164)

O R D E R

The clerk’s record filed in this appeal does not include a certification of the defendant’s 

right to appeal. Consequently, on December 20, 2016, the Court entered an order for the trial 

court to enter a certification of the Appellant’s right to appeal as required by Rule 25.2(d) of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Cortez v. State, 420 S.W.3d 803 (Tex.Crim.App. 

2013)(when a certification of the right to appeal has not been entered, courts of appeals are 

required to order trial court to prepare and file the certification rather than dismiss the appeal). A 

supplemental record containing the certification was due to be filed in this Court by January 19, 

2017. The El Paso County District Clerk has informed the Court that the supplemental record 

could not be filed because the certification has not been filed. 

The trial court’s certification of the Appellant’s right to appeal is required in order for 

this appeal to continue. Further, this Court is required to ensure that the trial courts comply with 
2

the requirements of Rule 25.2(d). Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, extends the time 

for filing the certification to February 22, 2017. Further, we abate the appeal and remand the 

cause to the trial court for preparation and filing of the certification. The trial court is 

ORDERED to prepare and file a certification of the Appellant’s right to appeal with the El Paso 

County District Clerk. The certification form is included as Appendix D to the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure and the form is available on the Eighth Court of Appeals’ website for the 

convenience of the parties and the trial court. In the event the trial court is unable to obtain the 

signature of the Appellant on the certification, the trial court is directed to prepare and file the 

certification without the Appellant’s signature. The Court will take steps to ensure that 

Appellant is informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
June Term, 1860.

#### State vs. Mushied.

A prosecution for bastardy is a *quasi*criminal proceeding, and cannot be brought to this court by appeal, but by writ of error only.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Dodge*County.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

*Billinghurst &*Lewis, for appellant.

*J. H.*Howe, Attorney General, for the state,

contended that the provisions for appeals, (chap. 139, R. S.), apply only to civil actions, and that this is a *quasi*criminal action, in which a summary method of arrest and punishment is authorized, and in which the proceedings are not for the benefit of any private individual, but are designed to protect the *people*against loss for the maintenance of the bastard, the supervisors of the town being authorized to make the complaint. R. S., chap. 37, § 11.

October 15.

*By the Court,*

Paine, J.

This was a complaint against the defendant for the purpose of compelling him to provide for the support of a bastard child. There was a trial in the circuit court, and he was convicted and adjudged to be the father of the childf and to provide for its support. Erom the judgment he has appealed to this court, in the manner provided for appeals in civil actions. The attorney general moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the statute relating to appeals, applies to civil actions, and that a complaint charging the party with being the father of a bastard child, is not a civil action within the meaning of that statute. We are inclined to be of this opinion. The statute which allows *562an. appeal to "be substituted for a writ of error, was evidently designed only for civil actions, and not to change the practice in criminal cases.

Bastardy proceedings, it is true, are not strictly of a criminal character, yet they have always been considered as *quasi*criminal cases, and the practice in them has been like the practice in criminal cases. We think the new system was not intended to change the proceedings in such cases, and that if the defendant desired to review the judgment of the circuit court, he should have sued out a writ of error.

The motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted, with costs.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VIRNETX INC.,

Appellant

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1480

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,949.

______________________ 

Decided: December 9, 2016

______________________ 

IGOR VICTOR TIMOFEYEV, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

NAVEEN MODI, JOSEPH PALYS, DANIELLE RUTH ACKER 

SUSANJ, DANIEL ZEILBERGER. 

JOHN C. O'QUINN, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by NATHAN S.

MAMMEN; JEFFREY PAUL KUSHAN, Sidley Austin LLP, 

Washington, DC.

______________________ 
2 VIRNETX INC. v. APPLE, INC. 

Before O’MALLEY, MAYER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

This appeal concerns the validity of VirnetX Inc.’s

(“VirnetX”) U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181 (“the ’181 patent”), 

disclosing technology for establishing secure communication over networks. Apple Inc. (“Apple”) challenged all 

claims of the ’181 patent in a request for inter partes 

reexamination, Control No. 95/001,949. The Patent and 

Trademark Office granted reexamination and rejected all

29 claims as unpatentable. On appeal, the Patent Trial 

and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirmed. Specifically, 

the Board’s final decision found claims 1–12, 14, 15, and 

17– 29 anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,496,867 to Beser 

(“Beser”), claims 1, 2, 7–9, 12–17, 19–21, and 24–29 

anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,131,121 to Mattaway 

(“Mattaway”), and claims 1–15, 18–23, and 28–29 anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,557,037 to Provino (“Provino”). 

VirnetX now appeals to this court. 

After full review of the record and careful consideration, we find no error in the Board’s claim constructions or 

findings with respect to the Mattaway and Provino references, which together cover all claims of the ’181 patent. 

We do not, therefore, need to reach the merits of the 

Board’s decision with respect to Beser.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00271-CR

Stewart Le Richardson a/k/a Stewart 

L. Richardson

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1148118D)

November 23, 2016

Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Sue Walker____________________

 Justice Sue Walker
Exhibit 13.1





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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Orckit Communications Ltd. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Eric Paneth, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 June 29, 2011
 By:

/s/ Eric PanethEric Paneth, Chief Executive Officer
# C_2016028EN.01000102.xml

| 26.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7816 — EGP/F2i/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 28/02)

On 7 December 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the Italian language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7816. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7816. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2016266EN.01000201.xml

| 22.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 266/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8076 — Warburg Pincus/Wendel/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 266/02)

On 15 July 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8076. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8076. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5

 38.5

 39.0

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

07/28

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 28 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.2
 
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and
appoints George L. Lippe, Robert E. Sulentic and William P. Leiser the true and
lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for
him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director or
officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1998, and to sign any or all amendments to such
Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents
in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting
unto said attorney or attorneys-in-fact, each of them with or without the
others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorney or attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their
substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
                                       /s/ William F. Concannon
                                       ---------------------------------------- 
                                           William F. Concannon
# C_2015209EN.01000401.xml

| 25.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 June 2015

(2015/C 209/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1213 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,93 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4619 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71180 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2118 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0449 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,7690 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,206 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,11 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1671 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4675 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9962 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4473 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3793 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6927 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6297 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5061 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 244,32 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,5958 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9619 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5880 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 917,43 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2182 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,514 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 60,9332 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,875 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4442 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2490 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,3016 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1213

JPY

Japanese yen

138,93

DKK

Danish krone

7,4619

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71180

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2118

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0449

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,7690

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,206

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,11

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1671

RON

Romanian leu

4,4675

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9962

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4473

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3793

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6927

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6297

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5061

KRW

South Korean won

1 244,32

ZAR

South African rand

13,5958

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9619

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5880

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 917,43

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2182

PHP

Philippine peso

50,514

RUB

Russian rouble

60,9332

THB

Thai baht

37,875

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4442

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2490

INR

Indian rupee

71,3016

---

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

1

Source

---
# CA2016146EN.01000101.xml

| 26.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 146/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 146/1

---

RESERVE LIST

(order of merit)

ECA/2015/JUR — Two lawyer posts (grade AD 8 — AD 9)

Legal Service — Presidency

(2016/C 146 A/01)

Georgios PRANTZOS

Georgios PRANTZOS

Johanne VERMER

Johanne VERMER

Eléonore VON BARDELEBEN

Eléonore VON BARDELEBEN

Nunzio BAMBARA

Nunzio BAMBARA

Jan KLEIN

Jan KLEIN

Vassilis KARANTOUNIAS

Vassilis KARANTOUNIAS

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 16, 2016

No. 04-16-00326-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.C., A CHILD,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-PA-01427

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal. Although the reporter’s record was due on June 6, 2016, no 

reporter’s record has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1(b) (requiring the reporter’s record in an 

accelerated appeal to be filed within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed). It is therefore 

ORDERED that the reporter’s record must be filed in this appeal no later than ten days from the 

date of this order. TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c). 

If the reporter’s record is not received by such date, an order may be issued directing 

David Zarate to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to file 

the record. No motions for extension of time will be granted absent extenuating circumstances. 

See id.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of June, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

QUINN WILRIDGE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

TERRI GONZALEZ, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-17695

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02236-SI

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 16, 2016

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, WARDLAW, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Quinn Wilridge, a California state prisoner, appeals from the dismissal as

time-barred of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. He also appeals the denial,

after an evidentiary hearing on limited remand from this court, of his Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do

FILED

DEC 02 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
not recount them here. We affirm.

Following the evidentiary hearing, the district court did not clearly err in

finding that Wilridge failed to show that his mental impairment caused his

untimely federal habeas petition, particularly given his filing of several other legal

and administrative documents during the relevant time period. See Yeh v. Martel,

751 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that a petitioner’s mental impairment

was not “so severe as to be the but-for cause of his delay” where the petitioner

“repeatedly sought administrative and judicial remedies, and . . . showed an

awareness of basic legal concepts”). 

Therefore, the district court did not err in determining that Wilridge failed to

establish an “extraordinary circumstance” that would warrant equitable tolling of

his untimely habeas petition. See Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092, 1099-100 (9th Cir.

2010) (setting forth test for equitable tolling of an untimely habeas petition based

on mental impairment). 

Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Wilridge’s habeas petition

as time-barred. The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying

Wilridge’s Rule 60(b) motion. See Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120, 1131 (9th

Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review for Rule 60(b) motion). 

AFFIRMED. 

2