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, Brion Umidi, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a — 15(e) and15d — 15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 11, 2006         By:                        /s/ BRION UMIDI    Name:  Brion Umidi    *Title:*  *Chief Financial Officer*
#### Samuel D. KELKER, Petitioner-Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee

No. 17-60061 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 10, 2017

Samuel D. Kelker, Pro Se

Robert Joel Branman, Esq., David A. Hubbert, Thomas J. Clark, Supervisory Attorney,U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, William M. Paul, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The order of the Tax Court is affirmed because all of the procedures have been followed to sustain the notice of determination and the collection due process hearing. The taxpayer Petitioner has had full opportunity to present any objection or evidence on his behalf. The Commissioner was entitled then to move for summary judgment by the Tax Court.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 10.13Description of Arrangement for Directors FeesThe following sets forth the amount of annual fees payable (excluding representation expenses) toeach non-employee director of W Holding Company, Inc. (except for directors who receive benefitsfrom any retirement plan), for their services as Directors in fiscal year 2006:   Event FeesAnnual Retainer:     For those Directors withparticipation in less than threeboard of Directors committees. $24,000 annually, payableon a monthly basis ($2,000).   For those Directors withparticipation in more than threeBoard of Directors committees. $42,000 annually, payableon a monthly basis ($3,500).   Secretary of the Board ofDirectors $18,000 annually, payable ona monthly basisfor being a Director of the Board ofDirectors. Also, the Secretary of theBoard of Directors receives an additionalretainer of $6,720 annually, payable on amonthly basis ($560) for his (her)position as Secretary of the Board.   Chairman of the Audit Committeeand Financial Expert $36,000 annually, payable on a monthlybasis ($3,000).W Holding Company, Inc. may also reimburse Directors for their out-of-pocket expenses incurred inconnection with attendance at meetings of and other activities relating to service on the Board ofDirectors or any Board of Directors committee.
Steven T. HUMPHREY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1427

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 18, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after rendition of the order being appealed and is, therefore, untimely.

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ, Concur.
EXHIBIT 11

                              THE FINOVA GROUP INC.
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share
                  (Dollars in Thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Three Months Ended                        Twelve Months Ended
                                                      March 31,                                 December 31,
                                         ----------------------------------          ----------------------------------  
                                              1997                 1996                  1996                 1995
                                         -------------         ------------          ------------        --------------  
<S>                                      <C>                   <C>                   <C>                 <C>           
Income from Continuing
  Operations                             $      31,658         $     26,756          $    116,493        $       93,798
                                         =============         ============          ============        ==============

Net Income                               $      31,658         $     27,121          $    117,000        $       97,629
                                         =============         ============          ============        ==============

Average common shares
  outstanding before
  common equivalents                        27,144,000           27,320,000            27,408,000            27,452,000
Common equivalent stock
  options                                      780,000              603,000               628,000               380,000
                                         -------------         ------------          ------------        --------------
Average outstanding common
  and equivalent shares                     27,924,000           27,923,000            28,036,000            27,832,000
                                         =============         ============          ============        ==============
Earnings from continuing
  operations per common
  and equivalent share                   $        1.13         $       0.96          $       4.16        $         3.37
                                         =============         ============          ============        ==============
Earnings per common and
  equivalent share                       $        1.13         $       0.97          $       4.17        $         3.51
                                         =============         ============          ============        ==============
</TABLE>
                                       11
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

BRENDEN WILLIAM VERMILYEA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10495

D.C. No.

4:13-cr-00196-DCB-BPV-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 17, 2016**

San Francisco, California

Before: CLIFTON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and HAYES,*** District Judge.

FILED

JUN 28 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Appellant Brenden Vermilyea appeals from his conviction by a jury for one

count of Possession of Firearm by a Prohibited Person and one count of Possession

of Ammunition by a Prohibited Person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm. 

Vermilyea contendsthatthe district court’s jury instruction regarding prohibited

possession of a firearm violated due process by relieving the government of the

obligation to prove all elements of the offense where the instruction stated that (1) “a

general court martial conviction is a crime that satisfies section 922(g)(1) if the crime

for which a defendant is court-martialed was punishable by imprisonment for a term

exceeding one year” and (2) “imprisonment includes a term of confinement in a

military institution.” We conclude that under United States v. MacDonald, 992 F.2d

967 (9th Cir. 1993), the issue of whether a court-martial conviction is a crime under

§ 922(g)(1) is a matter of law. The jury instructions were an accurate statement of the

law under MacDonald, see 992 F.3d at 970, and did not relieve the government of the

obligation to prove that Vermilyea was convicted of a crime punishable by

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

Vermilyea also contends that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutionally vague by failing

to provide reasonable notice to Vermilyea, and others similarly situated, that his

military conviction made him a prohibited possessor. We conclude that § 922(g)(1)

2
is not unconstitutionally vague because ordinary people can understand that an offense

in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice may qualify as a “crime” and that

military confinement may qualify as “imprisonment” for purposes of § 922(g)(1). See

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983). 

AFFIRMED.

3
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 99

            REVIEW REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) as of September 30,
1997, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income for the
three-month and six-month periods ended September 30, 1997 and 1996, and the
condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the six-month periods ended
September 30, 1997 and 1996. These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
year then ended (not presented separately herein), and in our report dated April
18, 1997, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements. In
our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 1997, is fairly stated in all
material respects in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it
has been derived.


                                                     /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Tampa, Florida,
     October 14, 1997
**SECRETARY’S
      CERTIFICATE**


**OF**


**PACIFIC
      CONTINENTAL CORPORATION**





I
      hereby
      certify that I am the Secretary of Pacific Continental Corporation (“Company”),
      located in Eugene, Oregon; and that I have been duly elected and am presently
      serving in that capacity in accordance with the Bylaws of the
      Company.





I
      further
      certify that on February 13, 2007, the Board of Directors of the Company held
      a
      meeting in which a quorum of directors was present.





I
      further
      certify that at the meeting of February 13, 2007, the following resolution
      was
      approved by the directors present at the meeting.





**Recital** :
      In
      accordance with the provisions of the Bylaws of Pacific Continental Corporation,
      Article II, Section 13, Director Compensation, the Board of Directors desire
      to
      change the manner in which directors of the Company are compensated, and that
      such change is to be effective retroactively to January 1, 2007.





**Resolved** :
      That
      retroactively effective to January 1, 2007 director compensation shall be
      determined as follows:





**Board
      of Director Meetings:**


Chairman,  $2,400
      per meeting


Directors,  $1,900
      per meeting





**Committee
      Chair Retainer**


Committee
      chairs receive a quarterly retainer as shown below:





**Committee
      Meetings**





Committee
            Quarterly
              Chair
              Retainer
            Meeting
              FeeAudit
              In-person
                meetings
              Scheduled
                telephone meetings
            $1,500
            $150
              $100ALCO
            $500
            $100Compensation
            $500
            $100Executive
            $0
            $100Governance/Nominating
            $500
            $100








IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature to this instrument on this day,
      the
      13 th day of
      March 2007.








/s/
      Shannon Coffin


Shannon
      Coffin, Secretary


Pacific
      Continental Corporation
Exhibit 10.28


 


2009 Cash Incentive Plan


 


Purpose:


 


The terms of the 2009 Cash Incentive Plan (the “Plan”)
have been established to reward the executives and other employees of Rigel
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for assisting the Company in achieving
its operational goals through exemplary performance. Under the Plan, cash
bonuses, if any, will be based on both the achievement of corporate goals and a
review of personal performance, which is determined at the discretion of the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”)
and/or the Board of Directors (the “Board”).


 


Determination of 2009 Cash Bonuses:


 


Target bonuses for participants in the Plan will range
from 5% to 60% of such recipient’s 2009 base salary, with a range for
executives of 40% to 60% of such executive’s 2009 base salary. The maximum
bonus that a participant will be eligible to receive is 120% of such
participant’s 2009 base salary and in no event will a bonus be paid later than March 15
of the year following the year in which the bonus was earned. The objective
Company performance goals for each participant will be based on meeting certain
goals with respect to the Company’s financial performance, including the
Company’s cash position at December 31, 2009, clinical development of
product candidates and building the pipeline of potential product candidates,
as well as other Company performance goals to be determined by the Compensation
Committee. The Board and Compensation Committee reserve the right to modify
these goals and criteria at any time or to grant bonuses to the participants
even if the performance goals are not met.
#### IN RE: James K. BURKS, Jr., a/k/a Howard Theodore Wright, a/k/a Nathan King, a/k/a Derrick Baxter, a/k/a Marcus Allen, a/k/a Martin Wilson, a/k/a Marcus Williams, Petitioner.

No. 17-1802

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 23, 2017

James K. Burks, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James K. Burks, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district court to act on *235his motion to show cause, which he filed in the district court on May 17, 2017. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 894, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

The district court’s docket establishes that Burks’ action is proceeding and reveals no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant Burks’ application to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
Pedro Esteban Cantero BONILLA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-169

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
2 Attachments 

Mike et al,

  

Attached please find our Technical Supplement to the Regional Haze plan.  This plan is FINAL, NOT draft.

  

We will submit the paper version to the Regional Administrator with Kyra’s letter later this week.  I will notify

you when it is put in the mail.  We will also have a full version scanned at that time.

  

Please let me know if you need any additional information from us.

  

Final Technical Supplement for Regional Haze Plan 

Drake, Tiffany 

to: 

Michael Jay, Chris Wolfersberger, Amy Bhesania, Andy Hawkins 

01/30/2012 12:41 PM 

Cc: 

"Vit, Wendy", "Leath, Mark", "Alsharafi, Adel", "Bechtel, Cheri" 

Hide Details 

From: "Drake, Tiffany" <tiffany.drake@dnr.mo.gov> 

To: Michael Jay/R7/USEPA/US@EPA, Chris Wolfersberger/R7/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy 

Bhesania/R7/USEPA/US@EPA, Andy Hawkins/R7/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: "Vit, Wendy" <wendy.vit@dnr.mo.gov>, "Leath, Mark" <mark.leath@dnr.mo.gov>, 

"Alsharafi, Adel" <adel.alsharafi@dnr.mo.gov>, "Bechtel, Cheri" 

<cheri.bechtel@dnr.mo.gov> 

History: This message has been replied to. 

FINAL Regional Haze Supplement Jan 30 2012.docx Appendix A BART Applicability Update Jan 30 2012.xlsx

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mjay\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web4428.htm 2/16/2012
Thanks,

  

Tiffany Drake, PE

SIP Unit Chief

Air Pollution Control Program

Missouri Department of Natural Resources

(573) 751-4817

tiffany.drake@dnr.mo.gov

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\mjay\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web4428.htm 2/16/2012
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Richard A. Ross, as Chief Financial Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the
Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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 results of operations of the Company.



Date: November 8, 2005

By:

/s/ Richard A. RossRichard A. RossChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03016]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic 
Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, 
pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The grant applications and the 
discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial 
property such as patentable material, and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention 
and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)--RFA-CK22-006, Clinical and 
Applied Research Strategies for the Prevention and Control of Fungal 
Diseases.
    Date: April 14, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT.
    Place: Teleconference, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30329.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    For Further Information Contact: Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., 
Scientific Review Officer, CDC, National Center for HIV, Viral 
Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop 
US8-1, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, (404) 718-8833, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bed9dfd0dadbcccdd1d0fedddadd90d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="294e48474d4c5b5a4647694a4d4a074e465f">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee 
management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-03016 Filed 2-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


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