alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 
 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
 Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I, Barbara Duncan, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of DOV Pharmaceutical, 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. Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 
 c) Evaluated the effectiveness of 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
 
 d) Disclosed in this report any change in registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to 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 that are reasonably likely to adversely affect 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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: May 10, 2004
 
 /s/ Barbara Duncan
No. 11-7302.

#### Van Jackson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1100, 132 S. Ct. 863,

181 L. Ed. 2d 562,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8862.

December 12, 2011.

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

Same case below, 427 Fed. Appx. 524.
No. 11-6445.

#### Frederick D. Dendy, Petitioner v. Jessie Streeter, Warden.

565 U.S. 1064, 132 S. Ct. 765,

181 L. Ed. 2d 492,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8656.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
≥95% (6 awardees)

75% - 94% (25 awardees)

50% - 74% (19 awardees)

25% - 49% (3 awardee)

<25% (1 awardee)

No IIS (1 awardee)

No data (1 awardees)

Percentage of adolescents aged 11 – 17 years participating in an immunization 

information system -- United States, five cities§, and D.C., 2015

National Participation: 72% (excluding Territories)

Source: CY2015 IISAR

§ Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; New York City, NY; Philadelphia, PA; San Antonio, TX.
No. 11-6421.

#### Eusebio Vela, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 969, 132 S. Ct. 469,

181 L. Ed. 2d 306,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7468.

October 17, 2011.

Petition for writ of

certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 430 Fed. Appx. 288.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

WARREN TARVER , Appellant

,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1872

[July 5, 2018 ]

CORRECTED OPINION

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seven teenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Timothy L. Bailey

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 95

- 12342

- CF

- 10A

.
Warren Tarver, South Bay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

M AY , C ONNER and F ORST , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 5, 2009, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), LiMo Foundation (“LiMo”) filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Marvell International, Ltd., Hamilton, Bermuda, and Telefonica S.A., Madrid, Spain, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of this group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and LiMo intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 1, 2007, LiMo filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 9, 2007 (72 FR 17583).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 22, 2008. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 21, 2008 (73 FR 62542).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. E9-4023 Filed 2-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,749
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             532
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     37,939
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,500
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        117,584
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,813
<DEPOSITS>                                     146,003
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,612
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,492
<LONG-TERM>                                      5,515
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,212
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,012)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 168,813
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,505
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,927
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   205
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,647
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,777
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,212
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,435
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       65
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 167
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,865
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,556
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         970
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       970
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.42
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,070
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       67
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,175
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,175
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,175


</TABLE>
No. 11-6655.

#### Ricardo Javier Arellano, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1018, 132 S. Ct. 560,

181 L. Ed. 2d 404,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7947.

November 7, 2011.

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

Same case below, 436 Fed. Appx. 152.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6692

CLARENCE T. FOX, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ERIC HOLDER, In his official capacity; FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

PRISONS, In its official capacity; WARDEN DARLENE DREW, In

her official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(2:10-cv-00780-HFF)

Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 5, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence T. Fox, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence T. Fox, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 

(West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Fox v. Holder, No. 

2:10-cv-00780-HFF (D.S.C. Apr. 29, 2010). 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.

AFFIRMED
c: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge

Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Little Jimmerson Hansen Lovato Law Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

CLERK'S ORDER
No. 11-6862.

#### Glenn Lee Selden, Petitioner v. Florida, et al.

565 U.S. 1118, 132 S. Ct. 1009,

181 L. Ed. 2d 747,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 127,

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, denied.

Same case below, 77 So. 3d 1261.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 1, 2009

s0325 

# Order

April 1, 2009

137563

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137563 COA: 287028 Saginaw CC: 07-028993-FJ BRIAN SCOTT HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 19, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the Sa ginaw Circuit Court, and we
REMAND this case to the trial court for re sentencing. Under MC L 769.1(3), the trial court must conduct a hearing at a juvenile’s sentencing to determine whether to impose a sentence that commits the juvenile to an in stitution or agency de scribed in the youth rehabilitation services act, 1974 PA 150, or to impose an adult sentence. If the prosecutor and the defendant agree, the sentencing cour t may waive the hearing requirements of MCL 769.1(3). If the hearing is waived, the court may place the j uvenile on probation and commit the juvenile to an institution or agency descri bed in the youth rehabilitation services act, but the court is barred from im posing any other senten ce provided by law for an adult offender. MCL 769.1(4). Here, the hearing required by MCL 769.1(3) was waived, but an adult sentence was imposed, c ontrary to the provisions of MCL 769.1(4).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
No. 11-590.

#### Phillip C. Engers, et al., Petitioners v. AT&T, Inc., et al.

565 U.S. 1157, 132 S. Ct. 1101,

181 L. Ed. 2d 979,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 787.

January 17, 2012.

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

Same case below, 466 Fed. Appx. 75.
# Nomenclature

# B1

# B2

# B3

# B4

# B5

# B6

# B7

# D1

# D2

# D3

# D4

# D5

# D6

# D7

# D8

# D9

# D10

# D11

# D12

# D13

# D14

# Sheet1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7328

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES W. BAXTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.

(CR-93-122-WN, CA-97-262-WMN)

Submitted: March 3, 1998 Decided: June 2, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles W. Baxter, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Charles W. Baxter seeks to appeal the district

court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v.

Baxter, Nos. CR-93-122-WN; CA-97-262-WMN (D. Md. Aug. 20, 1997). We

find Baxter's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding

the allegedly duplicitous indictment meritless because he failed to

establish that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. See

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984). 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
DLA TROOP SUPPORT SUBSISTENCE INSPECTION MANUAL 4155.6

SUBSECTION 225.1

 OCTOBER 2011

CONTRACTOR INSPECTION

General Information

I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE: Describe general procedures for the contractor’s quality 

assurance system to Government Quality Assurance Representatives (GQAR’s) at ration 

assembly plants.

II. POLICY: 

A. Subsistence contractors shall be responsible for ensuring their product and/or 

processes conform to contractual requirements and to their approved Quality 

System Plan (QSP). 

B. Contractor inspection may include intermediate or processing operations. Unless 

otherwise stipulated in the contract, the contractor’s receipt, end item, in process 

records, procedures and QSP’s must be made available to the GQAR.

III. DEFINITION:

Contractor Inspection and/or Contractor Audit: The Inspection/Audit performed by or 

for the contractor, to the extent required by the contract, to determine the acceptability of 

supplies and/or it’s process.

IV. BACKGROUND:

A. The contract’s Higher Level Requirements define thirteen elements that shall be 

addressed as a minimum in the Contractors QSP.

B. DLA Troop Support Manual 4155.5, Subsistence Contractor Inspection Procedure 

Manual, explains the various elements of contractor inspection and outlines the 

contractors responsibilities for performing inspection and reporting inspection results.

V. PROCEDURES:

A. Generally, the contractor shall be required to perform inspections in accordance

with the normal severity inspections of ANSI/ASQ Z1.4, however; the contract 

may specify a severity of inspection greater than at the initial production phase of 

the contract. In the event the contract does not specify a greater than normal 

severity of inspection, tightened inspection procedures shall be implemented.

B. When the contractor is required to perform examinations and/or tests, the QAR 

shall ascertain whether they are being performed in accordance with contractual 

requirements. This determination is accomplished by observing and evaluating 

the contractor’s processing system and/or the tests that are required by the 

contract. This function is called “Contractors Quality Systems Evaluation.” 

Subsection 225.2 outlines what is expected of the contractor in the way of 

inspection and reporting.

C. Verification Examination Procedures are prescribed in subsection 225.3.
BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER

KATHRYN YOUNTZ

Chief, Support Services Div

Directorate of Support

This Subsection supersedes Subsection 225.1, July 2010
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 23
- 00072
- CR IN RE WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB

Original Proceeding

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012
- 678
- C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding filed on March 8, 2023, relator, William Charles Webb, seeks to compel McLennan County District Clerk Jon R. Gimble to receive all papers in this proceeding and, pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals “a copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a ce rtificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made if the convicting court decides that there are no issues to be resolve.” See T EX
. C ODE
C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.07

.In re Webb Page 2

We do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district cle rk unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Smith , 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); see T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221. Webb has
not shown that a writ of mandamus directed to the district clerk is necess ary to enforce our jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss Webb’s March 8, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

STEVE SMITH Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Smith , and Justice Wright 1 Petition d ismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 15, 2023 Do not publish [OT06]

1 The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX
. G OV ' T C ODE A NN
. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
No. 11-6454.

#### David Proctor, Petitioner v. New Jersey.

565 U.S. 1064, 132 S. Ct. 766,

181 L. Ed. 2d 493,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8659.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20121]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed During the Week of July 
17, 1998

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Sections 412 and 414. 
Answers may be filed within 21 days of date of filing.

Docket Number: OST-98-4067
Date Filed: July 13, 1998
Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association
Subject:
    PTC2 ME 0046 dated July 3, 1998
    Within Middle East Resolutions r1-12
    PTC2 ME 0047 dated July 10, 1998--Minutes
    PTC2 ME Fares 0013 dated July 7, 1998--Tables
    Intended effective date: January 1, 1999.

Docket Number: OST-98-4082
Date Filed: July 15, 1998
Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association
Subject:
    r1: COMP Telex Reso 024f--South Africa
    r2: COMP Telex Reso 024f--Namibia/Lesotho/Swaziland Local Currency 
Fare Changes
    Intended effective date: July 20, 1998.

Docket Number: OST-98-4125
Date Filed: July 17, 1998
Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association
Subject:
    PTC12 USA-EUR Fares 0028 dated July 21, 1998
    US-UK Add-on Fares
    Intended effective date: October 1, 1998.

Docket Number: OST-98-4126
Date Filed: July 17, 1998
Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association
Subject:
    PTC12 USA-EUR 0053 dated June 26, 1998 r1-30
    USA-Europe Resolutions (except between US-Austria/Belgium/Germany/
Netherlands/Scand/Switz)
    PTC12 USA-EUR 0056 dated July 14, 1998--Minutes
    PTC12 USA-EUR 0057 dated July 14, 1998--Minutes
    PTC12 USA-EUR Fares 0026 dated July 10, 1998--Corrections
    PTC12 USA-EUR Fares 0025 dated July 7, 1998--Tables
    Intended effective date: November 1, 1998.
Cynthia L. Hatten,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 98-20121 Filed 7-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
No. 10-1517.

#### Edward H. Flint, Petitioner v. Coach House, Inc., et al.

565 U.S. 826, 132 S. Ct. 117,

181 L. Ed. 2d 41,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5263.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied.
ID Descriptor L* a* b* c h dL* da* db* dEcmc*

Standard 3803 STANDARD 31.29 -0.30 -1.76

Tolerance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

COMMENTS: NUMBERS ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY 

Equipment Type HUNTER ULTRA SCAN PRO Setting Mode: Specular Included - 

Reflectance

UV Filter – OUT UV Lamp OFF

Shade Number CHARCOAL GRAY 547 Piece/Roll Number 3803

DLA/ARMY SHADE TOLERANCE PROJECT June 11, 2018

Fabric Nomenclature V-STRIPE, JACKET, PHYSICAL FITNESS 

UNIFORM, 70D NYLON CRFD/PD 99-04C
# LSN REQUEST FORM