alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Exchange Act
 
 I, John R. Emery, Chief Financial Officer of Ventiv Health, Inc., certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Ventiv Health, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;
 
 4. The 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 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 annual 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 fourth fiscal quarter in the case of annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
 
 5. The registrants other certifying officer 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:
 
 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 control over financial reporting.
 
 
 
 
 DATE: March 12, 2004

By:

/ S /    JOHN R. EMERYJohn R. Emery
Chief Financial Officer
______________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 


 


 


 


 


 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 State of California
 

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP
 Attorney General
 

OPINION : 

: No. 89-891 

of : 

: APRIL 24, 1990 

JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP : 

Attorney General : 

: 

RONALD M. WEISKOPF : 

Deputy Attorney General : 

: 

PEDRO PALLAN has made an application for leave to sue THE COMPTON

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TED D. KIMBROUGH and LARRY SMITH in the name of the 

People of the State of California pursuant to Section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure often

referred to as quo warranto. The application recites that Mr. Pallan was appointed as a member of

the Personnel Commission of the Compton Unified School District in December, 1984, by the Board

of Trustees of that district. He was reappointed to the same position by the same board in

December, 1987 for a new three-year term to expire at the end of November, 1990. In April, 1989

the Board of Trustees concluded that Mr. Pallan was no longer a resident of the district and that

under Government Code section 1770(e) the office he had held on the Personnel Commission was 

vacant. Mr. Pallan objected, claiming that his residence had never moved from the district. On July

11, 1989 the Board of Trustees appointed Larry Smith to fill the vacancy over Mr. Pallan's

objections and Mr. Smith has acted as the member of the Personnel Commission in Mr. Pallan's

stead since that time. 

Pedro Pallan also filed a civil action in the Superior Court for the County of Los

Angeles entitled Pallan v. Compton Unified School District et al, Case No. C 730286. In that action 

Mr. Pallan seeks a judgment declaring the appointment of Mr. Smith to the Personnel Commission

to be void because there was no vacancy to fill and that Mr. Pallan be restored to the office. That 

action is still pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 

The Attorney General has discretion to deny leave to sue pursuant to section 803 of

the Code of Civil Procedure when he determines that such action would not be in the public interest.

(City of Campbell v. Mosk (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 640, 650; 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 151, 153.) It 

would not serve the public interest to authorize the filing of a quo warranto action pursuant to

section 803 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the same issues to be determined in such action 

are pending before a California court in another action. 

The application of Pedro Pallan for leave to sue is denied without prejudice to its

reinstatement if and when the action now pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Case

No. C 730286, which raises the same issues as would be raised in the action for which leave to sue 

is sought, terminates without resolving those issues. 

1 89-891 

 


 
 

* * * * *

2
 89-891
# L_2004329EN.01002001.xml

| 4.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 329/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 329/20

---

COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2004/748/CFSP

of 2 November 2004

concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 21 May 2002, the Council adopted Common Position 2002/400/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (1) and granting them national permits for entry into and stay on their territory valid for a period of up to 12 months. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 21 May 2002, the Council adopted Common Position 2002/400/CFSP concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (1) and granting them national permits for entry into and stay on their territory valid for a period of up to 12 months.

| (2) | By Common Positions 2003/366/CFSP (2) and 2004/493/CFSP (3), the Council decided that the validity of these permits should be extended by 12 and 6 months respectively. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By Common Positions 2003/366/CFSP (2) and 2004/493/CFSP (3), the Council decided that the validity of these permits should be extended by 12 and 6 months respectively.

| (3) | The validity of those permits should be extended for a further period of 12 months, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The validity of those permits should be extended for a further period of 12 months,

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Article 1

The Member States referred to in Article 2 of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP shall extend the validity of the national permits for entry and stay granted pursuant to Article 3 of that Common Position for a further period of 12 months.

Article 2

The Council shall evaluate the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP within 6 months of the adoption of this Common Position.

Article 3

This Common Position shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Article 4

This Common Position shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 2 November 2004.

For the Council

The President

B. R. BOT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 138, 28.5.2002, p. 33.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 51.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 181, 18.5.2004, p. 24.

3

---
Ernest L. ARCHIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1269

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 17, 2018 Rehearing Denied July 16, 2018

Ernest L. Archie, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*649DISMISSED . *See* *Henley v. State* , 171 So.3d 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (noting that time to appeal runs from date order is rendered by filing with the clerk of the court); *see also* *Ashley v. State* , 845 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (time to appeal runs from date order is rendered, not date order is received by inmate appellant).

Wetherell, Rowe, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-2937

LT Case No. 2023-CF-001335

_____________________________

DAVID ALLEN WESTMORELAND,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County.

R. Lee Smith, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Steven N. Gosney, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Whitney 

Brown Hartless, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, 

for Appellee. 

May 28, 20024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EISNAUGLE, HARRIS, and PRATT, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Book Chapters 

#           Quaternary geology of the Boston area: Glacial events from Lake Charles to Lake Aberjona      

      December 31, 2014    

The multiple-glacial and glaciomarine Quaternary history of the Boston, Massachusetts area has been known generally since the earliest studies of the then newly recognized glacial deposits described by Prof. Louis Agassiz in the late1840’s and fossil marine shells in the drift in the 1850’s. Attention then turned to possible glacial erosional effects on the preglacial bedrock physiography, as related to rock units and structure, and to the challenges of defining useful physical and lithic characteristics of the drift by Prof. W.O. Crosby and others, 1880-1900. The problems of deducing the relative stratigraphic order among such small, fossil-barren surficial sedimentary deposits, and extending knowledge gained from studies of postulated ancient glacial lakes to a regional understanding of the history of many lakes during the retreat of the ice sheet required field work and use of geologic maps. With the advent of modern topographic maps in the 1880’s, the early period of discovery included field studies of glacial lake deposits in local river basins in the Boston region, basins that drain northward, thereby creating glacial lake basins dammed by the ice margin as it retreated to the north. Guided by M.I.T. and Harvard professors W.O. Crosby, N.S. Shaler, J.B. Woodworth, W.M. Davis, and others in the 1880-1920 period, the first Quaternary glacial stratigraphers were students (e.g. Crosby and Grabau, 1896, Clapp, 1905, Fuller 1905, Goldthwaite 1906, Grabau, 1906, Taylor, Tight).

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Byron Stone, Ph.D.

##### Research Geologist

Florence Bascom Geoscience Center

bdstone@usgs.gov

860-291-6755

#### John W Lane, Jr., Ph.D.

##### Senior Advisor for Water/International

International Programs

##### Senior Advisor for Water/International

Water Resources Mission Area

jwlane@usgs.gov

860-487-7402

## Related Content

#### Byron Stone, Ph.D.

##### Research Geologist

Florence Bascom Geoscience Center

bdstone@usgs.gov

860-291-6755

#### John W Lane, Jr., Ph.D.

##### Senior Advisor for Water/International

International Programs

##### Senior Advisor for Water/International

Water Resources Mission Area

jwlane@usgs.gov

860-487-7402

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Florence Bascom Geoscience Center          

12201 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA20192United States

703-648-5953

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - massachusetts
                  -  New Hampshire
                  -  Rhode Island

View All **
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20203 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHRISTOPHER S. PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CR H-92-92-2

- - - - - - - - - - November 8, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Christopher S. Parker, #59853-079, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Parker argues that the district court abused its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of juror misconduct, the district court’s interview of a juror in his absence violated his Fifth Amendment right to be present during every stage in the proceedings, and the district court’s finding that the jurorNo. 96-20203 - 2 - misconduct did not interfere with the jury’s function was not supported by the record. Parker raised none of these issues in his § 2255 motion. We decline to review Parker’s arguments concerning these claims because there is no error that is clear and obvious. See Highlands Ins. v. National Union Fire Ins. , 27 F.3d 1027 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying the standard of United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995) to civil cases), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995). By not arguing the only issue that he did raise in his § 2255 motion, ineffective assistance of counsel, Parker has abandoned that issue. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Parker’s Motion for Bond Pending Appeal is DENIED as moot.
AFFIRMED.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice 133532 & (18) (19) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 133532 COA: 275762 Saginaw CC: 84-005570-FC ROBIN RICK MANNING, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2007 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgme nt is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motions for appointment of counsel and to remand are DENIED.

s0618 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.

June 26, 2007

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Corrections]
[Page 12592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-100307]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration


Examination of Working Places

Correction

    In notice document 95-4341 beginning on page 9987 in the issue of 
Wednesday, February 22, 1995, in the second column, under DATES, in the 
second line, ``April 1, 1995'' should read ``April 10, 1995''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
William Lee CHAMBLEE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-1423

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           9,661
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                    37,000
<INVENTORY>                                    343,791
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               374,965
<PP&E>                                         314,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                 131,608
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 714,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          853,384
<BONDS>                                         81,106
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       161,037
<OTHER-SE>                                    (380,713)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   714,814
<SALES>                                         71,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,562
<CGS>                                           54,385
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,042,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,050
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,010,110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,010,110)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07


</TABLE>
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust, as Trustee, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Barbara WALTON, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2812

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
# L_2009058DE.01000301.xml

| 3.3.2009 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 58/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2009

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 58/3

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 852/2004 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 29. April 2004 über Lebensmittelhygiene

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 139 vom 30. April 2004
  . Berichtigte Fassung im
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 226 vom 25. Juni 2004
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 139 vom 30. April 2004

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 226 vom 25. Juni 2004

Die nachstehenden Bezugnahmen beziehen sich auf die Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt L 226 vom 25. Juni 2004:

Seite 15, Anhang II, in der Überschrift:

anstatt:

„... (AUSGENOMMEN UNTERNEHMEN, FÜR DIE ANHANG I GILT)“

muss es heißen:

„... (AUSGENOMMEN UNTERNEHMER, FÜR DIE ANHANG I GILT)“.

Seite 15, Anhang II, Einleitung, erster bis vierter Gedankenstrich:

anstatt:

| „— | Kapitel I gilt für alle Betriebsstätten, in denen mit Lebensmitteln umgegangen wird, ausgenommen die Betriebsstätten gemäß Kapitel III; |
| --- | --- |

„—

Kapitel I gilt für alle Betriebsstätten, in denen mit Lebensmitteln umgegangen wird, ausgenommen die Betriebsstätten gemäß Kapitel III;

| — | Kapitel I gilt für alle Räumlichkeiten, in denen Lebensmittel zubereitet, behandelt oder verarbeitet werden, ausgenommen Essbereiche und die Betriebsstätten gemäß Kapitel III; |
| --- | --- |

—

Kapitel I gilt für alle Räumlichkeiten, in denen Lebensmittel zubereitet, behandelt oder verarbeitet werden, ausgenommen Essbereiche und die Betriebsstätten gemäß Kapitel III;

| — | Kapitel I gilt für alle in der Überschrift dieses Kapitels genannten Betriebsstätten; |
| --- | --- |

—

Kapitel I gilt für alle in der Überschrift dieses Kapitels genannten Betriebsstätten;

| — | Kapitel V gilt für alle Beförderungen.“ |
| --- | --- |

—

Kapitel V gilt für alle Beförderungen.“

muss es heißen:

| „— | Kapitel I gilt für alle Betriebsstätten, in denen mit Lebensmitteln umgegangen wird, ausgenommen die Betriebsstätten gemäß Kapitel III; |
| --- | --- |

„—

Kapitel I gilt für alle Betriebsstätten, in denen mit Lebensmitteln umgegangen wird, ausgenommen die Betriebsstätten gemäß Kapitel III;

| — | Kapitel II gilt für alle Räumlichkeiten, in denen Lebensmittel zubereitet, behandelt oder verarbeitet werden, ausgenommen Essbereiche und die Betriebsstätten gemäß Kapitel III; |
| --- | --- |

—

Kapitel II gilt für alle Räumlichkeiten, in denen Lebensmittel zubereitet, behandelt oder verarbeitet werden, ausgenommen Essbereiche und die Betriebsstätten gemäß Kapitel III;

| — | Kapitel III gilt für alle in der Überschrift dieses Kapitels genannten Betriebsstätten; |
| --- | --- |

—

Kapitel III gilt für alle in der Überschrift dieses Kapitels genannten Betriebsstätten;

| — | Kapitel IV gilt für alle Beförderungen.“ |
| --- | --- |

—

Kapitel IV gilt für alle Beförderungen.“

Seite 15, Anhang II, Kapitel I, Überschrift:

anstatt:

muss es heißen:

---
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ PETER H. BEER, TERRY J. HATTER, JR., THOMAS F. HOGAN, RICHARD A. PAEZ, JAMES ROBERTSON, LAURENCE H. SILBERMAN, A. WALLACE TASHIMA AND U. W. CLEMON, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

__________________________ 2010-5012

__________________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 09-CV-037, Senior Judge Robert H. Hodges, Jr.

__________________________ O R D E R Upon consideration of the order of the Supreme Court of the United States in Peter H. Beer, et al., v. United States , 131 S.Ct. 2865 (2011), vaca ting this court’s judgment and remanding to this court for further consideration,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :BEER v. US 2

The mandate of this court issued on March 30, 2010 is recalled, the appeal is reinstated, and this court’s January 15, 2010 judgment is vacated.

F OR T HE C OURT

August 4 , 2011

—————————— Date /s/ Jan Horbaly

—————————— Jan Horbaly Clerk

cc: Christopher Landau, Esq. Brian M. Simkin, Esq.
Osmany CROSWELL, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2187

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

DECEMBER 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.