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



I, Thomas E. Mills IV, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of
Metrologic Instruments, 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 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 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 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;



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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: September 23, 2003 |  | /s/    Thomas E. Mills IV
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------
|                         |
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8437 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to treat certain 

programs of education converted to distance learning by reason of emergencies and health-related situations in the same manner as programs 

of education pursued at educational institutions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 

Mr. SCHRADER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed 

Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

to treat certain programs of education converted to distance learning by reason of emergencies and health-related situations in the same manner as programs of 

education pursued at educational institutions. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8437 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

2 AFFAIRS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BENE3 FITS. 

4 Section 1(b) of Public Law 116–128 (134 Stat. 221; 

5 38 U.S.C. 3001 note prec.) is amended by striking ‘‘De6 cember 21, 2020’’ and inserting ‘‘December 21, 2021’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.1

                         CERTIFICATION OF 10-QSB REPORT
                                       OF
                         CHADMOORE WIRELESS GROUP, INC.
                       FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2002



1.       The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
         Officer of Chadmoore Wireless Group, Inc. ("Chadmoore"). This
         certification is made pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
         pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This
         Certification accompanies the 10-QSB report of Chadmoore for the
         quarter ended June 30, 2002.

2.       We certify that, based on our knowledge, such 10-QSB report fully
         complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except that the interim financial
         statements for the three and six months ended June 30, 2002, have been
         prepared without review by an independent public accountant, and that
         the information contained in such 10-QSB report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Chadmoore.

     This Certification is executed as of August 14, 2002




                                    /s/ ROBERT W. MOORE
                                    ----------------------------
                                    Robert W. Moore, Chief Executive Officer



                                    /s/ STEPHEN K. RADUSCH
                                    ----------------------------
                                    Stephen K. Radusch, Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kristofer Mikal WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30206

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 5, 2018 * Seattle, Washington

Filed February 20, 2018

Brendan Patrick McCarthy, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ashley Ann Harada, Attorney, Harada Law Firm, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and MCSHANE,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

**

 The Honorable Michael J. McShane, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

*682MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Kristofer Mikal Wright appeals the district court’s finding that reasonable suspicion existed for police to conduct an investigatory stop of Wright and to subsequently search a backpack. Because the officer who searched Wright had a reasonable belief that Wright engaged in criminal activity, and because Wright denied any possessory interest in the backpack, we AFFIRM.

Under the totality of the circumstances, when the officer seized Wright by asking him to stand in order to conduct a pat-down frisk, the officer had a “particularized and objective basis” for suspecting Wright was engaging in or was about to engage in criminal activity. *United States v. Arvizu,*534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). Here, the officer had information from a reliable, in-person, informant that Wright just left what the informant believed to be a drug house. The officer was familiar with the type of drug activity that occurred in the neighborhood. Wright’s driving appeared evasive as the officer followed him. When the officer approached Wright and his companion, they appeared nervous and under the influence of methamphetamine. They gave conflicting accounts of their activities. Wright stated he had no identification and could not immediately recall his name when asked.

The district court did not err in finding the information given to the officer by an unidentified citizen complainant was reliable. *United States v. Palos-Marquez,*591 F.3d 1272, 1275 (9th Cir. 2010). The information provided by the complainant, along with the subsequent observations of the officer, established reasonable suspicion that Wright was engaged in criminal activity.

In addition, by repeatedly denying ownership of a backpack, Wright relinquished any expectations of privacy with regard to its search. *Abel v. United States,*362 U.S. 217, 241, 80 S.Ct. 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960). This provides an independent basis to affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Samuel Bryce SILK, Jr. Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-4428

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Filed: February 23, 2018

Chad R. McCabe, McCabe Law Firm, Bismarck, ND, for Petitioner-Appellant

■Samuel Bryce Silk, Jr., Pro Se

Gary Lee Delorme, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jonathan O’Konek, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND, for Respondent-Appellee

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Bryce Silk, Jr. appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 after it sua sponte enforced a collateral review waiver in his plea agreement. Silk’s motion raises one claim: that he could not, as a matter of law, have committed the crime to which he pleaded guilty, domestic assault as a habitual offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 117.

Upon de novo review, we conclude that the collateral review waiver is unenforceable because, during the plea hearing, the district court neither informed Silk of the terms of the waiver, nor determined that he understood its terms. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(N); United States v. Boneshirt, 662 F.3d 509, 516 (8th Cir. 2011). We therefore vacate the denial of Silk’s § 2255 motion, and remand the case to the district court for further consideration. We leave for the district court to determine,in the first instance: (1) whether any other procedural hurdles preclude consideration of Silk’s claim on the merits; and (2) if not, whether Silk had at least two prior qualifying convictions that were “final” on July 12, 2014, when the events underlying this case occurred. See 18 U.S.C. § 117(a)(1) (requiring, as relevant, that a defendant’s prior convictions be both “final” and “against a spouse or intimate partner”); see also United States v. Wroblewski, 816 F.3d 1021, 1024-25 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Frook, 616 F.3d 773, 774-76 (8th Cir. 2010). Finally, we note that Silk attacks the validity of his conviction, and his currently scheduled release date is May *58711, 2018. We are confident the district court will act expeditiously.

Mandate to issue forthwith.
#### Jeffrey Paul MILLER Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-2043

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 7, 2018

Filed: February 12, 2018

John Thomas Murray, Columbia, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Jeffrey P. Ray, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Anne M. Zeigler, Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Paul Miller appeals the order of the district court1 affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. For reversal, Miller contends that the ALJ (1) did not give sufficient weight to the cognitive problems caused by his diabetes and joint pain; (2) erred in not according controlling weight to his treating physician’s assessment; (3) did not accord sufficient weight to the effects of his musculoskeletal impairments; and (4) erred in determining he could perform unskilled light work. Following careful review of the parties’ submissions and the record before us, we conclude that the ALJ’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, and that Miller’s arguments do not support reversal. See Andrews v. Colvin, 791 F.3d 923, 928 (8th Cir. 2015), Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0000817125
<NAME>     Affiliated Resources Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>     1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        7883
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                10922
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                 532060
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            553408
<PP&E>                                     3711105
<DEPRECIATION>                              381775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             7034041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      2426568
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     68386
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               7034041
<SALES>                                      99839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             99839
<CGS>                                        35174
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1259196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             19205
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           19205
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1213736)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1213736)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
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 on Form 10-Q of Golden River Resources
Corporation (the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"),
the undersigned, Joseph Gutnick, 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:

(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 13, 2008


                                         Joseph I. Gutnick
                                         -----------------------------------
                                         Joseph I. Gutnick
                                         Chairman of the Board, President and
                                         Chief Executive Officer


                                                                              24
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Brian Alleman, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Simtek 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 officer(s) 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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(s) 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: December 11, 2006

                                              /s/Brian Alleman
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Brian Alleman
                                              Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
 OF
 CHIEF
        EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 AND
 CHIEF
        FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I,
        Tony
        Tong, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
        of
        PacificNet Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
        and
        that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
        operations of PacificNet Inc.
 
 I,
        Joseph
        Levinson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
        of
        PacificNet Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
        and
        that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
        operations of PacificNet Inc.


By: 
      /s/ Tony Tong


Tony
      Tong


Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)





By: 
      /s/ Joseph Levinson


Joseph
        Levinson
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 (Principal
        Financial Officer)
EX-10.20



 Exhibit 10.20 
 REVISED FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE 
 This REVISED First Amendment to Lease (the “First
Amendment”), is made and entered into this 12TH day of APRIL, 2012 by and between Mission West Properties, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Lessor”) and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“Lessee”).

 RECITALS 
  

	A.	Lessee has entered into a lease with Lessor for an approximately 23,994 square foot building located at 5945 Optical Court, San Jose, California (the
“Premises”) dated June 10, 2011 (the “Lease”). 

  

	B.	Lessee has agreed to lease an additional 1669 sq. ft. of shell space. 

 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties hereto agree to amend the Lease as follows: 

 

	 	1.	Premises: Lessee has leased an addition 1669 sq. ft. for a total of 25,663 sq. ft. and 38% of building. 


 

	 	2.	BASIC RENT: The basic rent shall be adjusted to and payable as follows: 


 

													
	 	  	Basic Rent*	 	  	CAC**	 	  	Total	 
	 February 1, 2012 – July 31, 2012
	  	$	44,908	  	  	$	6,359	  	  	$	51,267	  

  

	*	Monthly base rent to increase by $.05 per sq. ft. over prior year’s monthly base rent on the annual anniversary of the Commencement Date each year during
the Lease Term over the prior year’s monthly base rent starting on August 1, 2012 to $1.80 or $46,193. 

  

	 	3.	 FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL: Lessor hereby grants Lessee a first right of refusal to lease any space available on ground floor of Building @5941-45
Optical, the 2nd Floor of 5941 Optical if Biotech Center
closes in the future, and 5961 Optical. If 5961 has been leased, then 5901 and 5921 Optical subject to other first rights of refusal. 


  

	 	4.	RATIFICATION OF LEASE: Except as modified herein, the Lease is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed upon all the terms, covenants, and conditions.


  

	 	5.	AUTHORITY: Each party executing this First Amendment represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this First Amendment. If
executed on behalf of a corporation, that this First Amendment is executed in accordance with the by-laws of said corporation for a partnership that this First Amendment is executed in accordance with the partnership agreement of such partnership,
that no other party’s approval or consent to such execution and delivery is required, and that this First Amendment is binding upon said individual, corporation (or partnership) as the case may be in accordance with its terms.


 INTENTIONALLY BLANK 

  
 1. 









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment, by their duly authorized signatories as
of the day first above written. 
  

									
	 Lessor
  

Mission West Properties L.P.
 By:
Mission West Properties, Inc.,
 Its General Partner
	 		 	 Lessee
  

ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.

					
	By:	 	/s/ Carl E. Berg	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Ken Song
	Print Name:	 	Carl E. Berg	 		 	Print Name:	 	Ken Song
	Title:	 	CEO	 		 	Title:	 	CEO
			
	Date: 4/11/12	 		 	Date: 4/12/12


  
 2.