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

 

I, Barry D. Michaels, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cardima, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin 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 (asdefined 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 oursupervision, 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 theregistrant’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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth 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 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 financialreporting, 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 overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:  March 31, 2004
Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. fo r U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h pa11s) Register ed and close-up) our) Products 

Apply Loctite 290 

to setscrew threads 

at setscrew 

0.1 $1 2,330 

installation 

0.0 $0 

I 

I 

' 

' 

' 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $22.135 

Costs covered under warranty (if /mown) s 

On-Condition Costs: ~ Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and close- up) 

7 
*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? G 

YES*0 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. 0 

YESO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. ls it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? 

YES* D 

*Explanation: 

8
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Sally L. Edwards, Chief Financial Officer of DDi Corp. (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period endedJune 30, 2009 (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 ofthe Company for the period covered by the Report. 

 

Date: July 31, 2009
```

[Federal Register: May 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 102)]
[Notices]               
[Page 29759]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27my10-54]                         

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

 
Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-
Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank)

    Summary: The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-
181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its 
programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the 
Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.
    Time and Place: Monday, June 7, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. The 
meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 1143, 
811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
    Agenda: Agenda items include a focus on the congressionally 
mandated Competitiveness Report, which focuses on how Ex-Im Bank's 
programs compare with their major G-7 ECA counterparts during 2009.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public 
participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 
questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written 
statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a 
photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance 
process into the building, and you may contact Susan Houser to be 
placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such 
as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please 
contact, prior to June 2, 2010, Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3232 or e-mail: 
susan.houser@exim.gov.
    Further Information: For further information, contact Susan Houser, 
Room 1273, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3232.

Jonathan Cordone,
Senior President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-12541 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07891]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Partial Consent Decree in United States v. 
Sainz, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-21212-RNS, was lodged with the United 
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami 
Division, on March 27, 2015.
    The proposed Partial Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by 
the United States, on behalf of the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers, against Juan Carlos Sainz, Siramad Trujillo-Sainz, Victor 
Ortega, Narinedat Roy, Sainz Homes LLC, Sion Home's Builders LLC and 
Sion Homes LLC, to obtain injunctive relief and civil penalties for 
violations of Sections 301 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 
1311 and 1344. The proposed Partial Consent Decree resolves these 
allegations against Juan Carlos Sainz, Siramad Trujillo-Sainz, and 
Sainz Homes LLC by requiring these Defendants to mitigate the losses of 
ecological functions resulting from the violation and directing them to 
pay a civil penalty.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Partial Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date 
of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Andrew J. 
Doyle, Senior Attorney, United States Department of Justice, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Defense 
Section, Post Office Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044 and refer to United 
States v. Sainz, et al., DJ # 90-5-1-1-20150.
    The proposed Partial Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's 
Office, United States District Court for the Southern District of 
Florida, Miami Division, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33128. In 
addition, the proposed Partial Consent Decree may be examined 
electronically at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

Cherie L. Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-07891 Filed 4-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CODE P
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Lance Thibault,Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of deCODE genetics, Inc.; and

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 
|   |   | /s/ Lance  Thibault  |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   | Lance Thibault            |
|   |   | Chief Financial  Officer  |

 

Dated: April 4, 2008

 

 

----
#### WILLIAM GEISSE et al., Appellees, *vs.*SAMUEL W. BEALL et als., Appellants.

This was an appeal taken in the preceding case, and from tbe same order therein set forth, by John C. Truesdell, one of the defendants. The facts are the same as in the former case: the appeal being taken by defendant Truesdell, from so much, and such part of said order as relates to him alone, which were imperative upon Truesdell to deliver over to the receiver on demand all the goods, chattels, credits, effects and proceeds pertaining to the trust estate which had come to his hands; with which order he neglected and refused to comply.

*By the Court,*

SMITH, J.

The objections to the order appealed from in this cause, so far as they relate to the defendant Beall, do not apply to the defendant Truesdell. It simply requires him, Truesdell, to appear before the receiver and assign, and deliver over the trust propert}' which may have come to his hands, in any manner since the commencement of the suit, and to pay over the proceeds of such trust property as he may have disposed of, and that he render an account, &c., &c. We can perceive no reason why he should not comply with the order of the court, so far as it relates to him; and the order is therefore affirmed.
EXHIBIT 11.1

                    Computation of Net Loss Per Common Share
                    (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Year Ended December 31,
                                                        --------------------------------------
                                                          1998           1997           1996
                                                        --------       --------       --------
<S>                                                     <C>            <C>            <C>      
Historical weighted average shares outstanding ...        22,927         18,871          5,784
                                                        --------       --------       --------
Shares used in computing net loss per common share        22,927         18,871          5,784
                                                        ========       ========       ========
Net loss .........................................      $(67,271)      $(37,668)      $(10,917)
                                                        ========       ========       ========
Basic and diluted net loss per common share ......      $  (2.93)      $  (2.00)      $  (1.89)
                                                        ========       ========       ========
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Patrick J. Kealy, Chief Executive Officer of Star Energy Corporation (the Company), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: October 15, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Patrick J. Kealy                 
|                       |  |  |  | Patrick J. Kealy                     
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
|                       |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)        

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
All Rice 2022

Yield Per Harvested Acre by County

for Selected States

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

Pounds Per Acre

Not Estimated

< 6,500

6,500 - 6,999

7,000 - 7,499

7,500 - 7,999

8,000 - 8,499

8,500 +
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Highland Homes

– Houston, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00585

- CV

Trial court case number: 20

- DCV

- 276771

Trial court: 400th District Court of Fort Bend C ounty

Re al P arty in I nterest , Ursula McLendon, has file d an Uno pposed M otion to Extend Time

to File Motion for R ehearing

. Real P arty in I nterest ’s motion is granted. Real P arty in

I nterest ’s motion for rehearing , if any, is due M arch 28

, 202 2

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___________ /s/ Julie Countiss

__________ Acting individually

Date: March 15, 2022
Exhibit 1.2Unofficial TranslationMINISTRY OF LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS REPUBLIK INDONESIA

   DIRECTIRATE GENERAL

   PUBIC LEGAL ADMIN ISTARTION

   Jl. HR. Rasuna Said Kav.6-7 Kuningan, South Jakarta

   Phone. (021) 5202387 – HuntingNumber

   :

   AHY-AH.01.10-18476

   Jakarta, July 22, 2010AttachmentRe

   :

   Acceptance Notice

   PERUSAHAAN PERSEROAN (PERSERO) PTTelekomunikasi Indonesia, Tbkfurther abbreviated PT TELKOM INDONESIA TBK (PERSERO)

   To.

   Notary DR.A.Partomuan Pohan, SH.LLM

   Jl. Wolter Monginsidi No.7

   JakartaIn accordance with the Data Model II Notarial Deed stored in the Legal Entity Administration System database and the Supplementary Deed Number 37, dated June 24, 2010 made by Notary DR. A. Partomuan Pohan, SH., LL.M domiciled in Jakarta, along with its supporting documents that were received on July 21, 2010 on the amendment of Article 15, Article 16, Article 17, Article 19, amendment of the Articles of Association ofPERUSAHAAN PERSEROAN (PERSERO) PT.Telekomunikasi Indonesia, Tbkfurther abbreviated PT TELKOM INDONESIA TBK (PERSERO), domiciled in Bandung- Kota Bandung, have been accepted and recorded in the Legal Entity Administration System Database Ministry of Law and Human Right of the Republic of Indonesia.ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTER OF LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS REPUBLIK INDONESIA.

   LEGAL ADMINISTRATORBy:  /s/ DR. AIDIR AMIN DAUD, SH., MH., DFM.

   DR. AIDIR AMIN DAUD, SH., MH., DFM.

   **NIP : 19581120 198810 1 001**
   1


---
#### Lutz et ux. v. Tamaqua Borough.

*Practice, C. P.*— Trespass—Affidavit *of defence*— Waiver *of objection to statement of claim*— Act *of May 3, 1917.*

The filing of an affidavit of defence in an action of trespass constitutes a waiver of defendant’s right to attack the regularity or sufficiency of the statement of claim, even though the defendant, being a municipality, was relieved from filing an affidavit of defence by the Act of May 3, 1917, P. L. 149.

Motion and rule to strike off plaintiff’s statement. C. P. Schuylkill Co., Sept. T., 1921, No. 449.

*R. P. Swank*and *J. B. Reilly,*for plaintiff.

*R. J. Graeff*and *J. O. Ulrich,*for defendant.

March 20, 1922.

Koch, J.,

The plaintiff’s statement was filed on Aug. 26, 1921, and the defendant filed an affidavit of defence on Sept. 12, 1921. Later the case was put on the January trial list, but continued, and, on Feb. 6, 1922, the present rule was obtained, the borough council having elected a new solicitor. The case is now on the March trial list.

The borough was not required to file an affidavit of defence (Act of May 3, 1917, P. L. 149), but having done so anyhow, the affidavit of defence amounts to a plea, and, the case being on the trial list, we see no reason for delaying the trial. If the statement of claim does not conform with the Practice Act of 1915, P. L. 483, a motion to strike it off should have been promptly made in accordance with the 21st section of that act. “One who seeks to avail himself of technical objections to pleadings must do so at the earliest opportunity. He cannot be permitted by those pleadings to raise an issue on the merits of the case and thereafter to attack the sufficiency of his opponent’s pleadings. . . . The filing of the affidavit of defence to the plaintiff’s statement of claim was an abandonment of the defendant’s right to attack the regularity or sufficiency of the statement:” Boyle *v.*Breakwater Co., 239 Pa. 577. See, also, Fuller *v.*Stewart Coal Co., 27 Dist. R. 512, and Noll v. Insurance Co., 34 York Leg. Record, 137.

The motion and rule are respectively denied and discharged.

From M. M. Burke, Shenandoah, Pa.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." 

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40251

Summary Calendar

__________________

JOSEPH H. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN HESTER,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

(6:94 CV 566)

______________________________________________

(July 31, 1995)

Before JONES, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Appellant Joseph H. Williams ("Williams"), proceeding pro

se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We affirm the

dismissal of the district court for the following reasons:
2

1. In the instant case, Williams's claim that he was denied

due process because the prison regulation required a captain or

major (rather than a lieutenant such as the Appellee John Hester

("Hester")) to classify a disciplinary infraction is wholly without

merit. The classification called for by the prison regulation

determines whether the disciplinary hearing will be classified as

major or minor. Williams was not harmed inasmuch as the instant

disciplinary case was classified as minor rather than major.

2. The trial court correctly determined that there was no

showing that Hester was involved in the investigation or

prosecution of Williams's infraction and also that Williams failed

to show that Hester's action denied Williams a fair and impartial

hearing. Thus, Williams's claims based on Wolff v. McDonnell, 418

U.S. 539 (1974), are unavailing. 

3. The equal protection argument advanced by Williams is

frivolous; Williams has made no showing that Hester intentionally

discriminated against him by grading the infraction or that he

suffered as a result of the unauthorized grading. See Lavernia v.

Lynaugh, 845 F.2d 493, 496 (5th Cir. 1988). 

Lacking an arguable basis in law, the claims asserted by

Williams were properly dismissed by the district court; certainly

no abuse of discretion was occasioned by the dismissal.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.1

Memo

To:    Applebee's International, Inc. Officers
       Members of the Board of Directors

From:  Robert T. Steinkamp

Date:  July 25, 2003

Re:    Notice of Blackout Period

As a director  or  executive  officer  of the  Company,  you are  subject to the
restrictions  under  Section  306(a) of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  which
prohibits certain trades during pension plan "blackout" periods. Please note the
following:

       1.     The prohibition is imposed because  participants in the Applebee's
              International,  Inc.  401(k)  Savings  Plan (the  "Plan")  will be
              temporarily unable to diversify investments under the Plan, obtain
              a loan under the Plan, or obtain a distribution  from the Plan due
              to certain service enhancements to the Plan.

       2.     You are not  permitted to purchase,  sell or otherwise  acquire or
              transfer  any equity  securities  of the  Company  (or  derivative
              securities of those equity  securities) during the Blackout Period
              described  below.  In  addition,  all  transactions  still  remain
              subject to the provisions of our insider trading policy.

       3.     The prohibition on sales and other transfers described in 2. above
              applies only to equity  securities of the Company (and derivatives
              of such securities) that you have acquired in connection with your
              service or  employment  as a director or executive  officer of the
              Company.  It is important to note that any such  security you sell
              or otherwise transfer will be automatically treated as acquired in
              connection  with your service or  employment  unless you establish
              that the  securities  were acquired  from another  source and this
              identification is consistent with your treatment of the securities
              for  tax  purposes  and  all  other   disclosure   and   reporting
              requirements.

       4.     The Blackout Period will commence on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 at
              3:00 p.m. CDT and end on  Wednesday,  August 27, 2003 at 8:00 a.m.
              CDT.

If  you  have  any  questions  regarding  this  notice,  please  contact  me  at
913-967-4038 or 4551 W. 107th Street, Overland Park, Kansas 66207.