alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Akio Ariura, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of AMDL, Inc.2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis annual report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the small business issuer and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annualreport based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: April 13, 2007
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5280 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2006 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 

respect to the distribution of the drug dextromethorphan, 

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, 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

HR 5280 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dextromethorphan 

3 Distribution Act of 2006’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; RESTRICTIONS 

5 ON DISTRIBUTION OF DEXTROMETHORPHAN. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter V of the 

7 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 

8 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 503A the 

9 following: 

10 ‘‘SEC. 503B. RESTRICTIONS ON DISTRIBUTION OF 

11 DEXTROMETHORPHAN. 

12 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the 

13 date of the enactment of the Dextromethorphan Distribu14 tion Act of 2006, the Secretary shall issue a final rule 

15 to prohibit the distribution of unfinished 

16 dextromethorphan to any person other than a person reg17 istered under section 510, subject to subsection (b). 

18 ‘‘(b) FURTHER RESTRICTIONS.—Subsection (a) does 

19 not restrict the authority of the Secretary under section 

20 201.122 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations. 

21 ‘‘(c) UNFINISHED DEXTROMETHORPHAN.—For pur22 poses of this section, the term ‘‘unfinished 

23 dextromethorphan’’ means dextromethorphan that is not 

24 contained in a drug that is in finished dosage form.’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

HR 5280 RDS

1 (b) ENFORCEMENT.—Section 301 of the Federal 

2 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amend3 ed by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(ii) The distribution of unfinished 

5 dextromethorphan in violation of regulations under section 

6 503B.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 6, 

2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
#### Anne Collison-Harrington, Respondent, v Leo Harrington, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 595]

In an action to rescind a separation agreement, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), entered February 18, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Judicial review of separation agreements is to be exercised sparingly, with a goal of encouraging parties to settle their differences on their own *(see, Christian v Christian,*42 NY2d 63). A party seeking to set aside a separation agreement which is fair on its face must prove fraud, duress, overreaching, or that the agreement is unconscionable *(see, Christian v Christian, supra; Wilson v Neppell,*253 AD2d 493; *Abrams v Abrams,*240 AD2d 445). The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff is not entitled to set aside the separation agreement *(see, Cohen v Cerier,*243 AD2d 670; *Giurdanella v Giurdanella,*226 AD2d 342; *Gaines v Gaines,*218 AD2d 683; *Middleton v Middleton,*174 AD2d 655; *Greenfield v Greenfield,*147 AD2d 440; *Anonymous v Anonymous,*137 AD2d 739; *Most v Monti,*91 AD2d 606). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 47 (Thursday, March 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLWY-957400-09-L14200000-BJ0000]


Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, Nebraska

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of filing of plats of survey, Nebraska.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file the 
plat of survey of the lands described below thirty (30) calendar days 
from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, 
Cheyenne, Wyoming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, 5353 
Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This survey was executed at the request of 
the National Park Service and is necessary for the management of these 
lands. The lands surveyed are:
    The plat representing the entire record of the survey of Tract No. 
37, Township 32 North, Range 3 East, of the Sixth Principal Meridian, 
Nebraska, was accepted March 6, 2009.
    Copies of the preceding described plat are available to the public 
at a cost of $1.10 per page.

    Dated: March 6, 2009.
John P. Lee,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of Support Services.
 [FR Doc. E9-5354 Filed 3-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4467-22-P
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, February 26, 2009, 8 a.m. to February 28, 2009, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 6, 2009, 74 FR 6292-6294.                 

The meeting will be held March 25, 2009 to March 27, 2009. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public. 

Dated: March 5, 2009. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

 [FR Doc. E9-5344 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1998  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF  MAGNITUDE  INFORMATION  SYSTEMS,  INC.  AND
SUBSIDIARIES  AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               9,403
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      218,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                       109,421
<INVENTORY>                                         26,789
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   585,792
<PP&E>                                             307,766
<DEPRECIATION>                                     159,483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,138,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,813,308
<BONDS>                                          1,316,839
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               643
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,992,337)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,138,453
<SALES>                                          2,926,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,926,455
<CGS>                                            1,590,440
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,590,440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   286,721
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    94,287
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 343,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,130,621)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (3,130,621)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     599,712
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,530,909)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.48)
                                               


</TABLE>
Ronald L. MILLS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. ED 105349

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: March 6, 2018

Maleaner R. Harvey, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant

Mary Highland Moore, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Respondent/Respondent.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

*891Ronald L. Mills appeals from the motion court's denial of his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15.1 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

All rule references are to Mo. R. Crim. P. 2016, unless otherwise indicated.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Kenneth Hicks, of Argentex Mining Corporation,
hereby 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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Argentex Mining
Corporation for the interim period ended April 30, 2010 (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 results of operations of
Argentex Mining Corporation.

Dated: June 14, 2010



/s/ Kenneth
HicksKenneth Hicks President and Director (Principal Executive
Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Argentex Mining
Corporation and will be retained by Argentex Mining Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
<PAGE>

                                   AMDL, INC.

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of AMDL, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Arthur S. Rosten,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 results of
         operations of the Company.

                                    /s/ Arthur S. Rosten
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    March 28, 2003
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.

153A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 20, 2019

Kay Miller Hobart, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For Graybar Electric Company, Inc.

Ronald D. Williams, II, Assistant Attorney General, For North Carolina Department of Revenue.

Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General, For North Carolina Department of Revenue.

James W. Doggett, Deputy Solicitor General, For North Carolina Department of Revenue.

*849The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 20th of August 2019 by Petitioner:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2019."

Petitioner shall have up to and including the 3rd day of October 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-60247

Summary Calendar

GEORGE FRILEY, Individually and as parent

and next friend of Joseph Friley, Et Al.,

Plaintiffs,

VERSUS

JOHNNIE FRILEY, Individually and as parent

and next friend of Joseph Friley,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

HOUSING BENEFITS PLAN; MILLER AND ASSOCIATES; EDMOND FRANCIS,

Defendants-Appellants,

TRUSTEES OF THE HOUSING BENEFITS PLAN,

Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

(2:96-CV-172-P-G)

November 17, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

This is an appeal by the Housing Benefits Plan, et al.,

defendants, from a final judgment of the district court entered on

March 16, 1998, pursuant to an opinion and order of even date

therewith in which the district court granted plaintiffs’ second

motion to enforce settlement pursuant to the terms of a written

settlement agreement dated December 2, 1996. We have carefully

reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by

the district court in its opinion and order, we affirm the final

judgment entered herein.

AFFIRMED.
No. 09-9966.

#### Gary S. Hann, Petitioner v. Michigan.

560 U.S. 914, 130 S. Ct. 3310,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1200,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4029.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied.

Same case below, 484 Mich. 865, 769 N.W.2d 667.
Exhibit  31
                                  CERTIFICATION

I,  Hideyuki Shiraishi,  certify  that:

1.   I  have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  Amanasu
     Technologies  Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
     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 quarterly
     report;

4.   I  am  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 my 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  my  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.   I  have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors  and  the  audit  committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons  performing  the  equivalent  function):

     a)  All  significant  deficiencies  and  material weakness 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  data;  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: November 26, 2004

                    /s/ Hideyuki Shiraishi
                   _____________________________
                        Hideyuki Shiraishi
                        Chief  Executive  Officer
                        Chief  Financial  Officer
                        Chief  Accounting  Officer
Kenneth Junior ARTHUR, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

NO. 14-17-00926-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).

Opinion filed February 8, 2018.

Amy Dianne Martin, Houston, TX, for Appellant.

Eric Kugler, Houston, TX, for State.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Busby and Wise

**MAJORITY OPINION**

PER CURIAM

Appellant Kenneth Junior Arthur has signed and filed, through his appointed counsel, a written request to withdraw his notice of appeal. *See* Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant's request. The appeal is dismissed.

**DISSENTING OPINION**

( Frost, C.J., dissenting)

Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice, dissenting.

Appellant Kenneth Junior Arthur did not timely perfect this appeal. This court never has had jurisdiction over the appeal. *See**Slaton v. State* , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). So, this court can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See id.* ; *Garcia v. State* , 76 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2001, pet. ref'd). Rather than grant appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a), this court should dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See**Slaton* , 981 S.W.2d at 210 ; *Garcia* , 76 S.W.3d at 36. Granting a motion to dismiss under Rule 42.2(a) does not show that this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. *See* Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). Because the court fails to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, I respectfully dissent.