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



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (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 such 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 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(d)
    
    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 registered
fourth quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: February 27, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Mark A. HeggestadMark A. HeggestadTitle:
    Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_publications(2)
              - multimedia_audio(2)
              - (-)multimedia_audio-141766(2)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(3)
              - arizona(1)
              - california(1)
              - colorado(1)
              - florida(1)
              - (-)louisiana(2)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - south carolina(2)
              - south dakota(24)
              - virginia(2)

## By Year

Podcasts        August 23, 2019        Outstanding in the Field (Ep 4): Amphibian Surveys – Call of the Frog

Podcasts        April 7, 2021        Outstanding in the Field Episode 7 - Science in the Swamp
### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

20 20 WY 112

April Term, A.D. 20 20

August 2 6

, 2020

DEWAYNE RAY FARTHING,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff). S

- 20

- 0101



### O RDER 

### A FFIRMING THE 

### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### ’ S



### “ O RDER T O 

### R EVO KE 

### P ROBATION 

### ”

[¶ 1 ] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that

Appellant has not filed a pro se brief in the time allotted. Appellant took this appeal to

challenge the district court’s March 12

, 20 20 , “ Order to Revo ke Probation

. ” Appellant

admitted he violated his probation

. The district court revoked probation and imposed a

sentence of 18 to 36 months o n Ap p ellant’s burglary c on viction

. Appellant entered an

unconditional guilty plea to that charge.

[¶ 2] On June 25 , 20 20 , Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a “Motion to

Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396,

140 0, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This Court subsequently entered an “Order Granting Motion

for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief,” which provided that Appellant “may file with

this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues he would like the Court to consid er in this

appeal.” This Court also provided notice that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired,

this Court would “make its ruling on counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if appropriate,

make a final decision” on this appeal. Appellant’s pro se b rief was due for filing on or

before August 10 , 2020. Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time

allotted.[¶ 3] Now, f ollowing a careful review of the record and the “ Anders brief” submitted by

appellate counsel this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be

granted and the district court’s “ Order t o Revo ke Probation ” should be affirmed

. I t is,

therefore,

[¶ 4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court

- appointed counsel

for A ppellant Dewayne Ray Farthing , is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record

for A ppellant; and it is further

[¶ 5 ] ORDERED that the Natrona County D istrict C ourt’s March 12

, 2 0 20, “ Order to

Revo ke Probation

, ” be, and the same hereby is , affirmed

.

[¶ 6] DA TED this 26 th day of August , 20 20

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

MICHAEL K

. D A VI S

Chief Justice
Douglas MANNING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1607

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FERNANDO MAGALDE

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 12

- 00 0 6 5

- C R

Appeal from the

120 th D istrict Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 201 1 0D0 5035 )

O R D E R

Appellant Fernando Magalde has filed a pro se "motion to compel discovery to Robert

Riely to filing for defendant's financial resources by the indigent certificate program."

Our records show that the final judgment in this appeal issued on March 28, 2014. As

such, this Court no longer has plenary jurisdiction to issue orders related to this ap peal such as

the one Appellant has requested.

Consequently, we will deny Appellant's motion for want of jurisdiction.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 18 th d ay of April , 20 2 2

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 30, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1133 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-916, K2025-917.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31101 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 30, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1183 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-978, K2025-977.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31161 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 232 

Expressing support for the designation of May 17, 2023, as ‘‘DIPG Pediatric 

Brain Cancer Awareness Day’’ to raise awareness of, and encourage 

research on, diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma tumors and pediatric cancers 

in general. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 1, 2023 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. REED, Mrs. FISCHER, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. BRAUN, 

Mr. CASEY, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, and Mr. MARSHALL) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of May 17, 2023, 

as ‘‘DIPG Pediatric Brain Cancer Awareness Day’’ to 

raise awareness of, and encourage research on, diffuse 

intrinsic pontine glioma tumors and pediatric cancers 

in general. 

Whereas diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (referred to in this 

preamble as ‘‘DIPG’’) tumors regularly affect 150 to 300 

children in the United States each year; 

Whereas brain tumors are the leading cause of cancer-related 

death among children; 

Whereas DIPG tumors are the leading cause of pediatric 

brain cancer deaths; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 232 ATS 

Whereas, with respect to a child who is diagnosed with a 

DIPG tumor and receives treatment for a DIPG tumor, 

the median amount of time that the child survives after 

diagnosis is approximately 11 months; 

Whereas, with respect to an individual who is diagnosed with 

a DIPG tumor, the rate of survival 5 years after diagnosis is approximately 2 percent; 

Whereas the average age at which a child is diagnosed with 

a DIPG tumor is between 5 and 10 years, resulting in 

a life expectancy approximately 70 years shorter than the 

average life expectancy in the United States; and 

Whereas the prognosis for children diagnosed with DIPG tumors has not improved during the past 50 years: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) supports designating May 17, 2023, as 

3 ‘‘DIPG Pediatric Brain Cancer Awareness Day’’; 

4 (2) supports efforts— 

5 (A) to better understand diffuse intrinsic 

6 pontine glioma tumors; 

7 (B) to develop effective treatments for dif8 fuse intrinsic pontine glioma tumors; and 

9 (C) to provide comprehensive care for chil10 dren with diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma tu11 mors and their families; and 

12 (3) encourages all individuals in the United 

13 States to become more informed about— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 232 ATS 

1 (A) diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma tu2 mors; 

3 (B) pediatric brain cancer in general; and 

4 (C) challenges relating to research on pedi5 atric cancers and ways to advance that re6 search. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 12.2  CERTIFICATION  I, Harry Kirsch, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Novartis AG;  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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.The company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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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 such 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 the company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 the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date: January 27, 2016   By:
/s/  HARRY   KIRSCHHarry KirschChief   Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00356-CV

SHEILA NANCE APPELLANT

V.

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 141ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant's “Agreed Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” It is 

the court=s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same, for which 

let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J. 

DELIVERED: November 23, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7034

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NICKY GENE BYRD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00354-NCT-1; 1:15-

cv-00621-NCT-JLW)

Submitted: December 27, 2018 Decided: February 12, 2019

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicky Gene Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicky Gene Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byrd has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2020320EN.01000401.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/4

---

Appeal brought on 8 April 2020 by WV against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 29 January 2020 in Case T-471/18, WV v EEAS

(Case C-162/20 P)

(2020/C 320/05)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside the order of 29 January 2020 of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-471/18, in so far as it dismissed the present appellant’s initial action for annulment as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded in law, and ordered the appellant to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside the order of 29 January 2020 of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-471/18, in so far as it dismissed the present appellant’s initial action for annulment as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded in law, and ordered the appellant to pay the costs;

| — | Order the original defendant to pay all of the costs, including the costs before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the original defendant to pay all of the costs, including the costs before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with Article 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

| — | Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union in order for it to rule on the action. |
| --- | --- |

—

Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union in order for it to rule on the action.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant submits that, in issuing the order under appeal, the General Court failed to have regard to the principle of unfettered evaluation of evidence and the concept of a body of consistent evidence and, therefore, failed to have regard to the rules relating to the burden of proof, in particular as regards the proof and evidence submitted by the appellant concerning the alleged infringement of Articles 1e and 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

The single ground of appeal raised by the appellant also alleges a denial of justice, discrimination, distortion of the facts by the order under appeal and manifest errors of assessment made by the General Court resulting in imprecise legal reasoning.

---