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



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Eleanor J. Whitehurst, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



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



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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:



c) 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 quarterly report is being prepared;



d) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 evaluations; 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 function):



c) 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



d) 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 11, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/ Eleanor J. Whitehurst
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------
|                      |  |  |  | Eleanor J. Whitehurst    



30
No. 10-6700.

#### Antwonne D. White, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1018, 131 S. Ct. 542,

178 L. Ed. 2d 398,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8343.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 549 F.3d 946.
# Muhammad retires, passes responsibility to Tobin

/ Published May 28, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia,
# Guam school gets free flat panel monitors through DLA

/ Published May 5, 2023
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Earlier this semester, George Washington High School in Guam received 227 interactive flat panels from the Department of Defense Education Activity, via Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services.

The story was covered by Pacific Daily News and can be accessed here.

Just one of many potential destinations for used and surplus military property, the DLA Disposition Services “Computers For Learning” effort actively markets millions of dollars in usable technology to educational organizations around the U.S. each year.

In fact, a Guam laptop donation was highlighted in 2020, when the rural Merizo Martyrs Memorial School received 50 brand new laptops donated via DLA from the Guam National Guard.

More donation stories and information on Computers For Learning can be found at the CFL homepage on this website. A variety of CFL recipients are also highlighted in an article from the former agency magazine Loglines titled “Keyboards For Classrooms.”
No. 10-6028.

#### Gilberto G. Rossaty, aka Gilberto Rossatti Mendez, aka Gilberto G. Rossatty, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 943, 131 S. Ct. 366,

178 L. Ed. 2d 236,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7230.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), the undersigned, David C. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to his knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ David C. KahnChief Financial OfficerMay 14, 2010
DAVID B. BILLENS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3891

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 4, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Original Jurisdiction

David B. Billens, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

LEWIS, C. J., WOLF and ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.
No. 10-452.

#### In re Luis Rafael Figueroa Hernandez, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1001, 131 S. Ct. 550,

178 L. Ed. 2d 408,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8393.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. 10-5404.

#### Jason Matthew Patton, Petitioner v. North Carolina.

562 U.S. 919, 131 S. Ct. 291,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7394.

178 L. Ed. 2d 191,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of North Carolina, Richmond County, denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 3.24

                          EAGLE-PICHER MINERALS, INC.

                           ACTION OF SOLE SHAREHOLDER


                                     *****


     Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., being the sole shareholder of Eagle-Picher
Minerals, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Corporation"), hereby consents to
the adoption of the following resolution:

     RESOLVED, that the By-laws of the Corporation be, and they hereby are,
amended as follows:

                                  ARTICLE III

                                   DIRECTORS

     Section 1. The number of directors which shall constitute the whole board
shall be determined from time to time by the stockholders of the Corporation,
but shall be no less than three (3), except that if all outstanding shares of
all classes of capital stock of the Corporation are held of record by less than
three (3) persons, the number of directors may be less than three (3) but not
less than the number of stockholders of record. The directors shall be elected
at the annual meeting of the stockholders, and except as provided in Section 2
of this article, each director elected shall hold office, until his successor
is elected and qualified. Directors need not be stockholders.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., by its duly authorized
officer, has signed this Action of Sole Shareholder effective the 16th day of
November, 2001.


                                   EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC.


                                   /s/ David G. Krall
                                   ------------------------------------
                                   David G. Krall
                                   Senior Vice President, General Counsel
                                    and Secretary
# DLA Aviation team at Corpus Christi Army Depot recognizes female co-workers 

/ Published March 21, 2024
CORPUS CHRISTI ARMY DEPOT, Texas, 
In recognition of Women’s History Month, the DLA Aviation team at Corpus Christi Army Depot celebrated the women within their ranks during a March 13 potluck.

The luncheon celebration also included a presentation of flowers and cake to those women present at event.

Dan Schell, the branch chief for Army customer operations at CCAD, wanted to give the recognition to ensure his team members felt included and honored.

“We need to take the time to reflect on all the great accomplishments women have made for society, past and present,” he said. “We are successful in meeting our mission requirements because of the initiative, dedication and resourcefulness of the female workforce in our branch.”

The event was a surprise, said Nora Villarreal, a customer account specialist, and the women felt appreciated by the recognition.

“It’s team building events like this that bring us together and encourage us the support each other on every level, personally and professionally,” she said. “I truly believe it makes us a more successful team through better communication.”
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16535]

[[Page 33922]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-2579-000]

Pittsfield Hydropower Company Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal

Jnue 16, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 11, 1998, Pittsfield Hydropower Company 
Inc., tendered for filing a Notice of Withdrawal of its filing made on 
April 20, 1998, in docket No. ER98-2579-000.
    Copies of the notice of withdrawal is being served upon Public 
Service Company of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Public Utilities 
Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 216 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.216). All such 
motions and protests should be filed on or before June 26, 1998. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16535 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7970
MARVIN DAVID MOORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE P. DODSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA95-770-R) Submitted: November 19, 1996 Decided: December 2, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Bruce McCoy Steen, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Moore v. Dodson , No. CA-95-770-R (W.D. Va. Nov. 1, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### IDT Corp. et al., Appellants, v Tyco Group, S.A.R.L., et al., Respondents.

[67 NYS3d 612]

*539Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered October 18, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

This action is barred by res judicata (see *Matter of Reilly v Reid,*45 NY2d 24, 27 [1978]); this is the third time that plaintiffs have alleged the same cause of action, *viz.,*that defendants breached a settlement agreement that the parties entered into 17 years ago (see *IDT Corp. v Tyco Group, S.A.R.L.,*23 NY3d 497 [2014]; *IDT Corp. v Tyco Group, S.A.R.L.,*13 NY3d 209 [2009]). This is also the second time plaintiffs have alleged that defendants failed to fulfill their obligation to negotiate in good faith. The fact that the specific details of how defendants allegedly breached that obligation differ between plaintiffs’ second lawsuit and the case at bar is of no moment *(see Reilly,*45 NY2d at 30; *Elias v Rothschild,*29 AD3d 448 [1st Dept 2006]).

Plaintiffs contend that res judicata cannot apply because their current complaint is based on conduct by defendants that occurred after the Court of Appeals’ second decision. However, defendants’ January 2015 refusal to engage in further negotiations was “integrally intertwined . . . and rooted in conduct that predated the commencement of this action” *(UBS Sec. LLC v Highland Capital Mgt., L.P.,*154 AD3d 631, 632 [1st Dept 2017]).

Plaintiffs seem unwilling to accept that the obligation to negotiate in good faith “can come to an end without a breach by either party” *(IDT,*23 NY3d at 503). However, the Court of Appeals has so ruled. “Considerations of judicial economy as well as fairness to the parties mandate, at some point, an end to litigation” *(Reilly,*45 NY2d at 28).

Since we have decided the case based on res judicata, it is unnecessary to discuss collateral estoppel *(see id.*at 31).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
No. 09-10837.

#### Rufus West, Petitioner v. Laura Hallet, et al.

562 U.S. 853, 131 S. Ct. 113,

178 L. Ed. 2d 70,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6068.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 10-62.

#### Luis C. Radice, et al., Petitioners v. Alicia M. Etchebarne-Bourdin, et al.

562 U.S. 892, 131 S. Ct. 264,

178 L. Ed. 2d 140,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6112.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.

Same case below, 982 A.2d 752.
<PAGE>
                                EATON CORPORATION
                        2006 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K/A
                                   ITEM 15(b)
                                  EXHIBIT 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Alexander M. Cutler, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Eaton Corporation; and

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.



Date:  March 26, 2007                      /s/ Alexander M. Cutler
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Alexander M. Cutler
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer;
                                           President

                                     Page 6
Notice of Commitment Increase



 Exhibit 10.19 
  
 [XTO LETTERHEAD] 
  
 NOTICE OF COMMITMENT INCREASE 
  
 May 26, 2004 
  
 JPMorgan Chase Bank 
 600 Travis, 20th Floor 
 Houston, Texas 77002 
 Attention: Administrative Agent 
  
 Ladies and
Gentlemen: 
  
 The undersigned, XTO Energy Inc. (the
“Borrower”), refers to the 5-Year Revolving Credit Agreement dated as of February 17, 2004 (as amended, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”, with terms defined in the Credit
Agreement and not otherwise defined herein being used herein as therein defined) among the Borrower, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Administrative Agent, and the Agents and Lenders party thereto. The Borrower hereby notifies you, pursuant to Section
2.02 of the Credit Agreement, that it hereby requests that the aggregate amount of the Commitments under the Credit Agreement be increased and the CI Lenders agree to provide Commitments under the Credit Agreement, and in that connection sets forth
below the information relating to such proposed Commitment Increase as required by Section 2.02(b) of the Credit Agreement: 
  
 (a) the effective date of such increase of aggregate amount of the Lenders’ Commitments is July 14, 2004; 
  
 (b) the amount of the requested increase of the Commitments is $200,000,000.00; 

 
 (c) the CI Lenders that have agreed with the Borrower to provide their respective
Commitments, are to be determined based on allocations of the Commitments on or about the effective date of the increase; and 
  
 (d) set forth on Annex I attached hereto is the amount of the respective Commitments of all Reducing Percentage Lenders and all CI Lenders as of effective date of
such Commitment Increase. 







 Page 2 
 May 26, 2004

  
 Delivery of an executed counterpart of this Notice of Commitment Increase by
telecopier shall be effective as delivery of an original executed counterpart of this Notice of Commitment Increase. 
  

			
	 Very truly yours,

	
	XTO ENERGY INC.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ John M. O’Rear


	 Name:
	 	 John M. O’Rear

	 Title:
	 	 Vice President and Treasurer



  
 Approved and Consented to
by: 
  

			
	JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
	 as Administrative Agent

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Robert C. Mertensotto


	 Name:
	 	 Robert C. Mertensotto

	 Title:
	 	 Managing Director









 ANNEX I 
  
 TO 
  
 NOTICE OF COMMITMENT INCREASE 
  
 (as of May 26, 2004) 
  

							
	 Lender

	  	 Amount of
 Commitment

	  	 Percentage of Total
 Commitments

	 
	 To be determined based on Allocations of the Commitments on or about the effective date of the increase.
	  	$	200,000,000.00	  	 	 
			
	 TOTAL:
	  	$	200,000,000.00	  	100.0000000	%
#### In the Matter of Ariel Williams, Petitioner, v Barry E. Warhit, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, et al., Respondents.

[48 NYS3d 609]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent Barry E. Warhit, an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, from determining a certain motion, and in the nature of mandamus to compel the assignment of that motion to another Justice.

*917Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court — in cases where judicial authority is challenged — acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; *see Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought.

Rivera, J.R, Roman, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          85,272                  95,438
<SECURITIES>                                 2,122,716               1,597,040
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,966                 679,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,000                 167,793
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                          40,004                  78,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,769                  39,885
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,368,378               3,110,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           44,679                  45,211
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,511                  50,511
<COMMON>                                       128,307                 128,307
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,189,560               2,931,754
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,368,378               3,110,572
<SALES>                                        197,149                 182,303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,149                 182,303
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  172,340                 145,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (58,911)                 55,158
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                24,795                 140,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,925                (158,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,731)               (101,400)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             64,656                 (57,242)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    64,656                 (57,242)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>