alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certifications**
     I, Wayne K. Bailey, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Ocean West Holding Corporation;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;
     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-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 andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (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 smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
         Date May 23, 2005 /s/ Wayne K. Bailey   Wayne K. Bailey   Chief Financial Officer  
16
# C_2015113EN.01000101.xml

| 8.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7514 — American Express/Credit Suisse/Swisscard)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 113/01)

On 27 March 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 English 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 32015M7514. 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 32015M7514. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
EXHIBIT 24.5

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert E. Sulentic, Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher
Kirk and each of them, his true and lawful attorneys-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, 2001, 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 attorneys-in-fact, and 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 each of said attorneys-in-fact or their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/ROWLAND T. MORIARTYRowland T. Moriarty
| |  | -----------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
WYN-EX10.2_2013.3.31-Q1




Exhibit 10.2
AMENDMENT NO. 3
TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT, dated March 15, 2013 (“Amendment”), made to the Employment Agreement dated as of November 17, 2008, as first amended by the letter agreement dated as of December 1, 2008 and further amended by Amendment No. 1 effective as of December 16, 2009 and Amendment No. 2 effective as of March 1, 2011 (together, the “Employment Agreement”), by and between Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Eric Danziger (the “Executive”).  Except as provided herein all terms and conditions set forth in the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have previously entered into the Employment Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the date first written above, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
1.The first sentence of Section II of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety and replaced with the following:
The period of the Executive’s employment under this Agreement (the “Period of Employment”) shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on November 17, 2014, subject to earlier termination as provided in this Agreement. 
2.    From and after the date hereof, all references to the Employment Agreement shall mean the Employment Agreement as amended hereby. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, and is hereby ratified and confirmed.  
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Amendment to be executed this 15th day of March 2013.
	
		
	EXECUTIVE

	 
	/s/ Eric Danziger

	 
	Eric Danziger

	 
	 




	
		
	WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION

	By:
	/s/ Mary Falvey

	 
	Name: Mary Falvey

	 
	Title: Executive Vice President
EXHIBIT 32

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


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350), the
undersigned, David J Cutler, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Aspeon, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Annual  Report Form 10KSB for the twelve  months  ended June 30, 2004 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1034, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Date:       October 31, 2005

By /s/David J Cutler
   ----------------------
David J Cutler
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Cloud Medical Doctor SoftwareCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended September 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Pamela Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, That to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

By /s/ Pamela Thompson

Pamela Thompson

Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer

December 1, 2014
Concurring o pinion issued December 6, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 18
- 00647
- CV

——————————— IN THE INTEREST OF A .K.T., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2017
- 03858J

CONCURRING OPINION I concur in the judgment. I write separately to caution against the dangers of kitchen

- sink approaches to opinion writing, particularly in the area of parental

termination appeals. There is ample evidence to support the judgment in this case. That being the case, the court can and should be selective in highlighting the evidence that supports the outcome, avoiding reliance on more dubious factors.2

With particular reference to evaluating the best interests of the child, one of the nonexclusive factors to be considered is “the parental abilities of the individuals seeking custody.” 1 I would not emphasize the mother’s lack of income or resources when there is no reason to do so. A parent’s inability or unwillingness to care for a
child can and should be considered in a best

- interest analysis without reducing the issue to a matter of the parent’s indigency. Why not stop there and rely on the other evidence th at supports termination under the other best

- interest factors? We don’t terminate parent

- child relationships because the parents are poor. 2 And we must take care not to write judicial opinions that suggest that we do. With these observations, I concur in t he court’s judgment.

Michael Massengale Justice Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Massengale. Justice Massengale, concurring in the judgment.

1 See Holley v. Adams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 37 2 (Tex. 1976)

.
2 See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE § 161.001(c)(2) (“A court may not make a finding under Subsection (b) and order termination of the parent

- child relationship based on evidence that the parent . . . is economically disadvantaged . . . .”).
Durum Wheat 2022

Yield Per Harvested Acre by County

for Selected States

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

Bushels Per Acre

Not Estimated

< 25

25 - 34.9

35 - 44.9

45 - 74.9

75 +
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07171]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Briefing notice.

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

DATES: Date and Time: Monday, April 20, 2015; 9:00 a.m.-5:45 p.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: Place: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 524 West 59th 
Street, New York, NY 10019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public 
Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela 
Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ddaeb4bab3b1bcb3baa8bcbab89da8aebebeaff3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afdcc6c8c1c3cec1c8dacec8caefdadcccccdd81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a> at least seven 
business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This briefing is open to the public.

Topic: Police Practices and Use of Force

I. Introductory Remarks
II. Panel I. 9:10 a.m.-10:40 a.m.: Community Leaders, Civilian Review 
Boards, and Police Organizations
    Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
III. Panel II. Law 10:40 a.m.-12:10 p.m.: Enforcement Officials and 
Experts on Police Accountability and Use of Force
    Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
IV. LUNCH--12:10 p.m.-1:10 p.m.
V. Panel III. 1:15 p.m.-2:45 p.m.: Court Officials and Experts on 
Procedural Justice and Legal Reforms
    Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
VI. Panel IV. 2:45 p.m.-4:15 p.m.: Federal Agencies and Federally-
funded Initiatives
    Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
VII. Panel V. 4:15 p.m.-5:45 p.m.: Researchers and Data Collection 
Experts
    Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
VIII. Adjourn Briefing--5:45 p.m.

    Dated: March 25, 2015.
David Mussatt,
Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
[FR Doc. 2015-07171 Filed 3-25-15; 4:30 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Barley 2022

Harvested Acres by County

for Selected States

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

Acres

Not Estimated

< 2,500

2,500 - 4,999

5,000 - 9,999

10,000 - 19,999

20,000 - 39,999

40,000 +
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JOOMART TOKTOBAEV AND ULUKBEK 

DZHUMALIEV

v.

ALPHA CONTRACTING III, LLC, KG 

CONSTRUCTION, ALLEGHENY POWER, 

WEST PENN POWER COMPANY, 

ALLEGHENY ENERGY, FIRST 

ENERGYCORPORATION, 

TRANZSPORTER, TIE DOWN 

ENGINEERING, INC., FAITH ALLIANCE 

CHURCH AND THE WESTERN 

PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT OF THE 

CHRISTIAN AND MISSIONARY 

ALLIANCE

PETITION OF: FIRST ENERGY 

CORPORATION, ALLEGHENY ENERGY, 

INC AND WEST PENN POWER 

COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 271 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

HELEN ESBENSHADE, ESQUIRE, 

ADMINISTRATRIX AND PERSONAL 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF 

ADYLBEK MURATALIEV, DEC.

v.

ALPHA CONTRACTING III, LLC, KG 

CONSTRUCTION, ALLEGHENY POWER, 

ALLEGHENY ENERGY, WEST PENN 

POWER COMPANY, FIRST ENERGY 

CORPORATION, TRANZSPORTER, TIE 

DOWN ENGINEERING, INC., FAITH 

ALLIANCE CHURCH, AND THE 

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA DISTRICT 

No. 272 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court
[271 EAL 2016 and 272 EAL 2016] - 2

OF THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY 

ALLIANCE

PETITION OF: FIRST ENERGY CORP., 

ALLEGHENY ENERGY, INC AND WEST 

PENN POWER COMPANY

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.

Justice Baer and Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or 

decision of this matter.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1114

JAMES LAMAR FRASIER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLINA CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

COUNTY OF CHARLESTON; CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; AL 

CANNON, JR., in his official capacity as Sheriff of Charleston 

County; CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MITCH LUCAS, in 

his official capacity as Administrator of the Charleston 

County Detention Center; CORIZON HEALTH, INCORPORATED, f/k/a 

Prison Health Services, Incorporated; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; 

JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(4:11-cv-03431-DCN)

Submitted: January 19, 2017 Decided: February 24, 2017

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Brian C. Duffy, Thomas A. Limehouse, Jr., DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen L. Brown, 

Russell G. Hines, YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS, LLP, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

James Lamar Frasier appeals the district court’s order 

denying his renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and 

motion for a new trial, following the jury verdict in favor of 

Carolina Center for Occupational Health, LLC, in Frasier’s medical 

malpractice action. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the 

record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Frasier v. 

Carolina Center for Occupational Health, LLC, No. 4:11-cv-03431-

DCN (D.S.C. Jan. 4, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0523. MARK ZEIGLER v. HSBC BANK USA, N. A.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. In 2014,

the magistrate court entered default judgment and a writ of possession in favor of

HSBC Bank USA, N. A. Defendants Mark and Sharvishia Zeigler filed an

application for discretionary review of that ruling in thisCourt, but we transferred the

matter to the state court because a party aggrieved by a magistrate court ruling must

first seek review in the state or superior court. See Case No. A15D0011, transferred

September 15, 2014. On July 7, 2016, the state court entered an order dismissing the

Zeiglers’ appeal. On August 8, 2016, Mark Zeigler filed a notice of appeal to this

Court.

1

 We lack jurisdiction for two reasons.

First, because the order at issue disposes of a de novo appeal from a magistrate

court decision, Zeigler was required to follow the discretionary appeal procedure to

obtain review before this Court. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11); Strachan v. Meritor

Mortgage Corp. East, 216 Ga. App. 82, 82 (453 SE2d 119) (1995). His failure to do

so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal.

Second, OCGA § 44-7-56 provides that an appeal from a dispossessory

judgment must be filed within seven days of the date the judgment was entered. 

Zeigler filed his notice of appeal 32 days after entry of the state court order he wishes

1 Although attorney Grady Roberts has been representing the Zeiglers in this

matter, the notice of appealstatesthat Roberts “failed to appear at any of the hearings

for which he was retained” and neglected to file a notice of appeal due to an asserted

“difficulty with the ‘e-filing system.’” Accordingly, Mark Zeigler filed the notice of

appeal pro se.

November 30, 2016
to appeal. Therefore, the appeal is untimely.

For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/30/2016
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 9, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00001

- CV

IN RE Jordan HOPPE , Relator(s)

Original Proceeding 1

ORDER

On January 4, 2022, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. On January 14, 2022, the real party in interest filed a response. After considering the petition, the appendix, and the response, this court concludes relator has not shown h er self to be en titled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on March 9, 2022

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 9th day of March, 2022

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz

, Clerk of Court

1 This pro ceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017

- CI

- 02605 , styled In the Interest of M.H. and A.H. , pending in the 73rd

Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Antonia Arteaga presiding.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7006

BENJAMIN CHARLES ASHLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-00-913-2)

Submitted: October 3, 2001 Decided: October 31, 2001

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Charles Ashley, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells,

Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Charles Ashley appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

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

the district court. Ashley v. Angelone, No. CA-00-913-2 (E.D. Va.

May 31, 2001). 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