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



CERTIFICATION



I, Martin Murray, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of AngioGenex, 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;



4. The small business issuer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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 31a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the small business issuer and we 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date: April 10, 2009



/s/ Martin Murray



Martin Murray

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Anthony Lee JOHNSON, Sr., also known as Antonio Seenyur Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jennifer Lynne COOLIDGE, SOTP Program Director, Minnesota State Prison, Rush City, individually and in her official capacity Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-3828

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 29, 2017

Filed: July 5, 2017

Anthony Lee Johnson, Sr., Pro Se

Jonathan D. Moler, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Saint Paul, MN, for Defendant-Appellee

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, inmate Antonio Seenyur appeals ^fter the district court1 denied his motion to com*321pel, adversely granted summary judgment, and denied his motion to amend his complaint. We decline to review Seenyur’s challenge to the denial of his motion to compel because he did not object below. See McDonald v. City of St. Paul, 679 F.3d 698, 709 (8th Cir. 2012) (where party did not file timely objections to magistrate’s nondispositive order in district court, he could not challenge order on appeal). Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons stated by the district court, and further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing record in light most favorable to nonmovant); see also Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 818 F.3d 380, 395 (8th Cir. 2016) (denial of motion to amend complaint is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B,

1

. The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Becky R, Thor-son, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6474 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6474

     To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal 
 exploration and development in previously studied or developed areas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 21, 2023

  Mrs. Steel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal 
 exploration and development in previously studied or developed areas.

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

SECTION 1. NEPA REVIEW.

    Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15942) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or the Geothermal 
        Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) for the purpose of 
        exploration or development of geothermal resources'' after ``or 
        gas''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or gas'' and 
                inserting ``, gas, or geothermal''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or gas'' and 
                inserting ``, gas, or geothermal''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*ROBERT TRAHAN

*Pamela S. Nagy,*special assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 45 Conn. App. 722 (AC 13810), is denied.

*925
      *James M. Ralls,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided September 30, 1997
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas G. Wiggans, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Connetics
Corporation;

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 officers 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 officers 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
         control over financial reporting.

Date: May 10, 2004

/s/ Thomas G. Wiggans
-----------------------------------
Thomas G. Wiggans
President and Chief Executive Officer
454 A.2d 180

#### Commonwealth v. Walker, Appellant.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied March 28, 1983.

Submitted October 26, 1982.

Sheri Desaretz, for appellant; Jane Cutler Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before HESTER, WICKERSHAM and POPOVICH, JJ.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6393 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to allow certain activities 

to be conducted with respect to sturgeon held in captivity or in a 

controlled environment in the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. WALTZ (for himself, Mrs. CAMMACK, Mr. SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida, 

and Mr. DUNN of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to allow 

certain activities to be conducted with respect to sturgeon 

held in captivity or in a controlled environment in the 

United States, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sturgeon Conservation 

5 and Sustainability Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6393 IH

1 SEC. 2. STURGEON HELD IN CAPTIVITY OR CONTROLLED 

2 ENVIRONMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

3 Section 9(b) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

4 (16 U.S.C. 1538(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 

5 following: 

6 ‘‘(3) STURGEON.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a)(1) and 

8 section 7(a)(2) shall not apply to— 

9 ‘‘(i) a sturgeon farmed in the United 

10 States that is legally held in captivity or in 

11 a controlled environment as of the date of 

12 enactment of this paragraph, until such 

13 time as the sturgeon is intentionally re14 turned to a wild state; or 

15 ‘‘(ii) progeny of a sturgeon described 

16 in clause (i), until such time as the prog17 eny is intentionally returned to a wild 

18 state. 

19 ‘‘(B) DEMONSTRATION; REQUIREMENTS.— 

20 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Any person hold21 ing any sturgeon or progeny described in 

22 subparagraph (A) shall— 

23 ‘‘(I) be able to demonstrate that 

24 the sturgeon or progeny qualifies as a 

25 sturgeon or progeny, as applicable, de26 scribed in that subparagraph; and 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6393 IH

1 ‘‘(II) maintain and submit to the 

2 Secretary, on request of the Secretary, 

3 such inventories, documentation, and 

4 records as the Secretary may, by reg5 ulation, require as being reasonably 

6 appropriate to carry out the purposes 

7 of this paragraph. 

8 ‘‘(ii) REQUIREMENTS.—Requirements 

9 described in clause (i)(II) shall not unnec10 essarily duplicate the requirements of other 

11 rules and regulations promulgated by the 

12 Secretary under this Act.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 10.52

November 15,
2000

Mitchell
Kertzman
President & Chief Executive Officer
Liberate Technologies
2 Circle Star Way
San Carlos, CA 94070

Subject:
Notice Pursuant to Employment Agreement

Dear
Mitchell:

Per
my employment agreement, dated June 30, 2000, I am notifying you as to my intent to assume a reduced role with Liberate, as well as the dates for my transition. I would
like to propose the following terms for your review and approval:



Very
truly yours,

/s/
PHIL VACHON

Phil
Vachon
Senior Vice President, Worldwide Sales

Acknowledged
and agreed:

|/s/ MITCHELL E. KERTZMANMitchell E. Kertzman |  | 
|-------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
Thomas L. MANUEL, a/k/a Thomas L. Manuel, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2538

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### New York Trap Rock Corporation et al., Plaintiffs, and Binghamton Metal Forms, Inc., Plaintiff, Appellant, *v.*National Bank of Far Rockaway, Respondent.

Submitted April 5, 1943;

decided April 15, 1943.

*Daniel Combs*for motion.

*Carl E. Peterson*for defendant.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements on the ground that an appeal lies as of right.
<PAGE>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John L. Higgins, certify that:

1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Connetics
Corporation;

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 officers 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 officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)      all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial 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 control over
financial reporting.


Date: August 5, 2004


/s/ John L. Higgins
--------------------------------------------
John L. Higgins
Executive Vice President, Finance and
Corporate Development and Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joseph Terrell KELLY, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-60852 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 24, 2017

Gregory Layne Kennedy, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Glenda Ruth Haynes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Eugene Carlos Tanner, III, Esq., Tanner & Associates, L.L.C., Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Joseph Terrell Kelly appeals the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the district court erred in finding that he violated the conditions of his supervised release by committing the new criminal offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Kelly concedes that he was a convicted felon and was arrested in possession of a gun but asserts that he was legally justified in possessing the gun because he took it to protect himself from an imminent threat of danger.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that Kelly committed the offense of being a felon , in possession of a firearm and was not entitled to the defense of justification. *See United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz,*38 F.3d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1994). The evidence does not support the conclusion that Kelly had the gun in response to an imminent threat of harm or that, in reacting to a reasonable and immediate fear for his life and safety, he temporarily possessed the gun in the course of defending himself. *See United States v. Gant,*691 F.2d 1159, 1162 (5th Cir. 1982); *United States v. Panter,*688 F.2d 268, 272 (5th Cir. 1982). Neither does the record support a conclusion that there was a continuing threat to Kelly’s— or any other person’s—-life or safety when he was found with the gun approximately four hours after he first took possession of *267it. Kelly may not assert the defense of justification when, as here, there was not a real emergency that left no time to seek a reasonable, legal alternative, and when he had the firearm for a significant period after the purported time of endangerment. *See Gant,*691 F.2d at 1163-64; *Panter,*688 F.2d at 272.

In sum, there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Kelly violated the conditions of his supervised release and that revocation was merited. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); *United States v. Jang,*574 F.3d 263, 265-67 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s judgment is 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 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fona, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Friess, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 the Company.



|              |     |                                  | 
|------------- | --- | -------------------------------- | 
|April 9, 2013 | By: | /s/ Michael Friess               | 
|              |     | Michael Friess                   | 
|              |     | Chairman of the Board, President | 
|              |     | and Chief Executive Officer      | 
|              |     | (Principal Executive Officer)    |
#### Ivy Friedman, an Infant, by Mildred Friedman, Her Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, *v.*Earl Kyle et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 7, 1943;

decided June 18, 1943.

*Eric P. Smith*for motion.

*Jonas P. Relin*opposed.

Motion denied.
**EXHIBIT - 32.1**

 

**MOSSIMO,INC.**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mossimo, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Mossimo Giannulli, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifyin accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report to which this certification is attached as Exhibit-32.1 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/ Mossimo Giannulli                   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Mossimo Giannulli                       |   |   |
| Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
| (Principal Executive Officer)           |   |   |
| November 11, 2004                       |   |   |

 

----