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

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, C. Steven Guenthner, certify that:

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

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 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 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 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 information; and

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

Date:   March 26, 2004

BY  /s/ C. Steven Guenthner
C. Steven Guenthner
Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32

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 this quarterly report of Nanophase
Technologies Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jess A. Jankowski, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and I, Frank Cesario, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

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

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

Date: May 12, 2011



| |  |  |  |  |  |                                       
| |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------------------------
| |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ JESS JANKOWSKI                    
| |  |  |  |  |  | Jess Jankowski Chief
Executive Officer
| |  |  | 
| |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ FRANK CESARIO                     
| |  |  |  |  |  | Frank Cesario Chief
Financial Officer
STATE EX REL. Terry Lynn TERRY v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 17-KH-0237

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

Hughes, J., would grant the writ in part.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1188 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1188

  To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers to 
disclose information on pay raises made to executives and non-executive 
                   employees, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 2021

Ms. Velazquez introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers to 
disclose information on pay raises made to executives and non-executive 
                   employees, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Greater Accountability in Pay Act''.

SEC. 2. PAY RAISE DISCLOSURES.

    Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(s) Pay Raise Disclosures.--An issuer required to file an annual 
report under this section or section 15(d), that is not an emerging 
growth company, shall include in such report--
            ``(1) the percentage increase in the median of the annual 
        total compensation of all executive officers (as such term is 
        defined in section 240.3b-7 of title 17, Code of Federal 
        Regulations) of the issuer over the last completed fiscal year;
            ``(2) the percentage increase in the median of the annual 
        total compensation of all employees of the issuer, excluding 
        executive officers, over the last completed fiscal year;
            ``(3) the ratio of the percentage described in paragraph 
        (1) to the percentage described in paragraph (2);
            ``(4) a comparison of the percentage described in paragraph 
        (1) to the percentage change over the same period in the 
        Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the 
        Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor; and
            ``(5) a comparison of the percentage described in paragraph 
        (2) to the percentage change over the same period in the 
        Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the 
        Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jarvis Alonzo DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4156

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 21, 2017

William F. Nettles, IV, Casey P. Riddle, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

*109Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jarvis Alonzo Davis appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing Davis to a total of 30 months in prison. Davis’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but suggests that we review the reasonableness of Davis’ sentence. Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Davis has not done so. We affirm.

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release.” *United States v. Webb,*738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). We “will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not ‘plainly unreasonable.’ ” *Id.*(quoting *United States v. Crudup,*461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006)). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” *United States v. Thompson,*595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for concluding the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. *Crudup,*461 F.3d at 440. A sentence within the applicable policy statement range under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines is presumed reasonable. *United States v. Padgett,*788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 494, 193 L.Ed.2d 360 (2015). Applying these standards, we readily conclude that Davis’ within-range sentence is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable, and therefore is not plainly unreasonable.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Davis, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Davis requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Davis. 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*
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


         In connection with the Annual Report of New World Brands, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Costas Ataliotis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of our
knowledge:


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

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


Date:    August 29, 2005                /s/ Costas Ataliotis
                                        --------------------
                                        Costas Ataliotis
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
                                        (principal executive officer)
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APRIL 23, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-10541

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00346-CR-J-32-TEM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

AMARA JUWARA,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(April 23, 2010)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Amara Juwara appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his

supervised release. This appeal follows our denial of counsel’s motion to

withdraw from further representation of Juwara on appeal pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our initial review of the record revealed at least

one issue of arguable merit: “whether the oral sentence pronounced by the district

court or the written judgment controls.” The parties have now briefed that issue.

We have held that “[w]hen a sentence pronounced orally and unambiguously

conflicts with the written order of judgment, the oral pronouncement governs.”

United States v. Bates, 213 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2000); see also United

States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305, 1316 (11th Cir. 2000) (same). Cf. United States

v. Purcell, 715 F.2d 561, 563 (11th Cir. 1983) (“When there is an ambiguity in the

oral sentencing, as opposed to a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the

written judgment, it is proper to look to the written judgment to ascertain the

court’s intention.”). The remedy in such a situation is a limited remand with

instructions for the district court to enter an amended judgment that conforms to its

earlier oral pronouncement. See Chavez, 204 F.3d at 1316.

The parties agree that the sentencing transcript reveals that the district court

specifically and unambiguously stated that it was imposing a sentence of 12

months’ imprisonment, while the subsequent written judgment does not conform to

2
that oral pronouncement. Based on our precedent, the oral pronouncement of a 12-

month term of imprisonment controls. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and

remand with instructions for the district court to amend the written judgment to

conform to the earlier oral sentence.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-20683

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCUS COLEMAN WILLIAMS, also known as Superman,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-177-4

Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Marcus Coleman Williams has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Williams has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* 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

July 10, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-20683 Document: 00514548792 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2018
No. 17-20683

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-20683 Document: 00514548792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2018
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D2 3

- 2070 Lower Tribunal No. 20 13

- CP

- 001770

- 0001

- XX

_____________________________
L AURA W OODARD , Appellant
,

v.

K ENNETH W. M AXFIELD , J R

. , as P ERSONAL R EPRESENTATIVE of the E STATE OF K ENNETH W. M A XFIELD , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County

.

Lauren L. Brodie , Judge.

February 20, 2024

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

. WOZNIAK, SMITH and MIZE , JJ., c oncur.

Amber Robinson and Ralph Strzalkowski , of Florida Rights Law Firm
, St. Petersburg , for Appellant.

D. Keith Wickenden and William M. Pearson , of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Naples , for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR RE HEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cheryl Dixon BELLAMY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Frederick Tyrone DIXON, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 3D17-1501

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
### NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 00 127

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

HOWARD ADAMS

, Appellant,

v.

MICHELLE CAROL ATKINSON

, Appellee.

On appeal from the 130 th District Court

of Matagorda County, Texas.2 

### NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 00 1 28

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN THE ESTATE OF J.W. MASSEY, DECEASED.

On appeal from the County Court

of Matagorda County, Texas.



### ORDER

Before Justices Longoria

, Hinojosa

, and Silva

Order Per Curiam

Appellant Howard Adams filed a notice of appeal on March 28, 2022 in appellate

cause number 13

- 22

- 00127

- CV, attempting to appeal the trial court’s “ judgment dated

March 22, 2022, as well as all prior orders merged therein, including the undated Order

Granting Summary Judgment .” A second notice of appeal was also filed March 28, 2022

in appellate cause number 13

- 22

- 00128

- CV attempting to appeal “ the ju dgment of the3 130th District Court in Cause No. 21

- F

- 0434 dated March 22, 2022 which transferred that

cause back to Cause No. PR20

- 0144, as well as all prior orders merged therein, including

the undated Order Granting Summary Judgment in Cause No. 21

- F

- 0434. ” Subsequently,

appellant filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the appeals in which he stat ed that

the separate notices of appeal were filed “[o]ut of an abundance of caution,” as the case

involved a transfer between the probate court and the 130th District Court.

Upon review, it appears that appellant is attempting to appeal an “Order to Transfer

Back to County Court,” signed on March 22, 2022, which may not be a final, appealable

order. Additionally, it appears that appellant’s notice of a ppeal might also be attempting

to appeal a n “Order Granting Summary Judgment,” signed in February 2022. Should this

Court determine the summary judgment order is not final and appealable, this appeal may

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, on this day, the Court orders appellant to

file a short letter brief identifying law that clearly establishes this Court’s jurisdiction to

review either or both orders within twenty days. Appellee may file a short response, if any,

within ten days of appella nt’s letter brief.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

19t h d ay of April, 2022.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1168 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1168

 To prohibit all United States assessed and voluntary contributions to 
the World Health Organization until such time as the membership in the 
    World Health Organization of the People's Republic of China is 
terminated and the Republic of China (Taiwan) is afforded full rights, 
privileges, and responsibilities as a Member State in the World Health 
                 Organization, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 2021

 Mr. Perry (for himself and Mr. Gaetz) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit all United States assessed and voluntary contributions to 
the World Health Organization until such time as the membership in the 
    World Health Organization of the People's Republic of China is 
terminated and the Republic of China (Taiwan) is afforded full rights, 
privileges, and responsibilities as a Member State in the World Health 
                 Organization, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``World Health Act''.

SEC. 2. MEMBERSHIP OF TAIWAN IN THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the United States 
shall withhold all assessed and voluntary contributions to the World 
Health Organization until such time as the membership of the People's 
Republic of China in the World Health Organization is terminated and 
the Republic of China (Taiwan) is afforded full rights, privileges, and 
responsibilities as a Member State in the World Health Organization.
    (b) Presidential Action.--The President is authorized to take any 
appropriate action to carry out subsection (a).
    (c) Actions at the World Health Organization.--The President shall 
direct the United States representative to the World Health 
Organization to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States 
at the World Health Organization to encourage Members States of the 
World Health Organization to take actions identical or similar to the 
action described in subsection (a).
    (d) No Effect on the United States in the World Health 
Organization.--United States membership in the World Health 
Organization shall not be affected in any way by the any action under 
this section.
                                 <all>
```