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

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

I, John D. Hellmann, certify that: 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Design Within Reach, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying 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 have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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 oursupervision, 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 theeffectiveness 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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: August 9, 2007
WOODLAND GROVE HEALTH & REHABILITATION CENTER, Appellant, v. Kenneth LOVING, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3398

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 17, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Mary J. RODRIGUEZ and Oscar Rodriguez, Appellants, v. Miguel PEREZ, M.D., Westchester General Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Southern Winds Hospital, the Wave Condominium Association, Inc., Atlantic & Pacific Association Management, Inc., Lourdes Diaz, and New Age Adultcare, Inc., Appellees.

Nos. 4D18-609 & 4D18-1547

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 18, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cv-00100-D Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-00100-D Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 2 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-00100-D Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 3 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-00100-D Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 4 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-00100-D Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 5 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-00100-D Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 6 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-00100-D Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 7 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-00100-D Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 8 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-00100-D Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 9 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-00100-D Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 10 of 11
Case 3:05-cv-00100-D Document 76 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 11 of 11
# C_2018408EN.01001801.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission

(Case C-172/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clauses - Pocemon Agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 - Eligible costs - European Commission decision - Obligation to reimburse sums paid - Counter-claim))

(2018/C 408/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: S. Paliou, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 168, 29.5.2017.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2




                Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
                         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


         Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Trailer Bridge, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: March 30, 2005                    /s/ Mark A. Tanner
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Mark A. Tanner
                                        Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7393

HARRY DEAN HUNNELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JACK LEE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-99-464-7)

Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry Dean Hunnell, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Harry Dean Hunnell appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

memorandum opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Hunnell v. Lee, No. CA-99-

464-7 (W.D. Va. Sept. 21, 1999). 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
Steven SHAREK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2204

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael Schmidt, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line, 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. The registrants
other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

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) 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s fourth fiscal 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

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 (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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: November 9, 2007



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|                                                    
|/s/ Michael Schmidt                                 
|Michael Schmidt Chief Financial Officer andSecretary
Gewonda Gubrell HUDSON v. STATE

CR-16-0641

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Peter Felix ARMSTRONG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4528

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 18, 2019

Robert David Malove of the Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General; and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

We agree with Appellant that the trial court should have corrected an illegal sentence. Appellant pleaded to DUI with property damage (count III), and leaving the scene of an accident involving unattended property (count IV). Following a jury trial, he was adjudicated guilty of DUI manslaughter (count I), and leaving the scene of an accident with property damage (count II). He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison on count I, time served on counts II and IV, and one year of probation on count III. The sentences on counts I and III were to run consecutively.

After Appellant had served four years on count I, the trial court granted Appellant's 3.850 motion and vacated his judgment and sentence as to count I alone. Appellant was released on bond, and ordered to report to state probation for supervision on count III. He argues that he in fact served his probation on count III satisfactorily, as evidenced by a letter from the Department of Corrections stating exactly that, which Appellant filed with his motion to correct illegal sentence and filed again with his motion for rehearing of the trial court's order dismissing the original motion. Meanwhile, over a year after the lower tribunal vacated the judgment and sentence on count I, the State amended the information, essentially substituting a count of vehicular homicide for the DUI manslaughter count. Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to this new count in exchange *1115for a sentence of over nine years in prison followed by five years on probation. However, in its Order of Probation, the court sentenced Appellant on count III to another year on probation.

The record reflects that Appellant began serving his sentence on count III the day the court vacated his judgment and sentence as to count I. He completed the probationary sentence on count III on February 28, 2017. He provided evidence of this in the form of a DOC letter, the authenticity and accuracy of which neither the State nor the trial court challenged. The trial court therefore improperly resentenced Appellant for count III three months after he completed his sentence, violating Appellant's right to be free from double jeopardy. U.S. Const. amend. V ; Art. I, § 9, Fla. Const.; *Sneed v. State* , 749 So.2d 545, 546 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (quoting *Palmer v. State* , 182 So.2d 625, 626-27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) ). On remand, the trial court should grant Appellant's motion to correct his illegal sentence and vacate his new sentence on count III.

REVERSED and REMANDED .

Ray, Kelsey, and Jay, JJ., concur.
# C_2017437EN.01002201.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 16 October 2017 — Japan Tobacco International SA, Japan Tobacco International France SAS v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

(Case C-596/17)

(2017/C 437/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Japan Tobacco International SA, Japan Tobacco International France SAS

Applicants:

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics, Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Directive [2011]/64/EU of 21 June 2011 (1) be interpreted, as regards the definitions of tobacco products set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4 thereof, as also governing the price of packaged tobacco products? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Directive [2011]/64/EU of 21 June 2011 (1) be interpreted, as regards the definitions of tobacco products set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4 thereof, as also governing the price of packaged tobacco products?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Article 15 of Directive 2011/64/EU, in laying down the principle that the price of tobacco products must be determined freely, be interpreted as prohibiting a rule setting the price of those products per 1 000 items or 1 000 grams which, in effect, prohibits manufacturers of tobacco products from adjusting their prices on the basis of potential differences in the cost of packaging those products? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Article 15 of Directive 2011/64/EU, in laying down the principle that the price of tobacco products must be determined freely, be interpreted as prohibiting a rule setting the price of those products per 1 000 items or 1 000 grams which, in effect, prohibits manufacturers of tobacco products from adjusting their prices on the basis of potential differences in the cost of packaging those products?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (OJ 2011 L 176, p. 24).

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

STEVE LORENZO SHAFER, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:04-CV-1116-D 

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, ) 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, )

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After making a de novo review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and having

considered petitioner’s objections filed April 25, 2006, I am of the opinion that the findings and

conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions

of the court.

SIGNED April 26, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-01116-D Document 33 Filed 04/26/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 167
Case 5:05-cv-00130-C Document 18 Filed 09/30/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 151
 

 Case 5:05-cv-00130-C Document 18 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 152
 

 Case 5:05-cv-00130-C Document 18 Filed 09/30/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 153
No. 29,883.

#### H. M. Bell, *Appellant,*v. Anna R. Van Meter et al., *Appellees.*

(299 Pac. 606.)

Opinion filed June 6, 1931.

*Adrian S. Houck,*of Medicine Lodge, for the appellant.

*Donald Muir, Harry B. Davis*and *R. H. Beebe,*all of Anthony, for the appellees.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This is an action to set aside a will on the ground of undue influence and mental incapacity. It was tried to the court. No separate findings of fact were requested or made. The court found generally that the instrument in question was the valid will *237of the testator and should remain in full force and effect as such, and rendered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff has appealed.

There was no evidence of undue influence as that term was defined and applied in *Ginter v. Ginter,*79 Kan. 721, 101 Pac. 634, and allied cases; indeed, in this court appellant does not argue that there was undue influence.

On the question of the mental incapacity of the testator to make the will, there was some conflict in the evidence, but there is an abundance of substantial evidence to support the finding and judgment of the trial court. The record on this point presents no legal question to be determined by this court.

Appellant suggests that our statute (R. S. 22-214) relating to an action to contest a will, which provides, if it shall appear that the will was written or prepared by the sole or principal beneficiary who, at the time, was the confidential agent or legal adviser of the testator, or occupied any other position of confidence or trust, should not be held to be valid unless it is affirmatively shown that the testator had read or knew the contents of the will and had independent advice with reference thereto, as construed in *Flintjer v. Rehm,*120 Kan. 13, 241 Pac. 1087, should be applied here. But it is clear the facts will not warrant its application. No beneficiary wrote or prepared this will. The only beneficiary who knew it was being prepared, and had any part in its preparation, received less than one-fifth of the estate. More than that, it does not appear that this point was pressed in the court below.

The record discloses no reason for disturbing the judgment of the court below, and it is affirmed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00525

- CV

Sammy J. Geiger , Appellant

v.

Barry Cohen , Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 318128

, THE HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant ’s brief was originally due on November 21, 2022. On December 7,

2022, this C ourt sent a notice to appellan t informing him that his brief was overdue and that a

failure to file a satisfactory respons e by December 19, 2022 would result in the dismissal of this

appeal for want of p rosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for

extension of time. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42. 3(b).

__________________________________________ Darlene Byrne

, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofan is

Dismissed for Want of Prose cution

Filed: February 1 4, 2023
Office of Inspector General

Investigation #20-01

Closing Memorandum

May 8, 2020

On February 11, 2020, the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

initiated an investigation concerning an allegation that a senior government employee engaged 

in whistleblower retaliation. On May 8, 2020, the OIG completed its investigative work and 

determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the allegation could not be substantiated. 

The OIG closed the investigation and issued Report of Investigation #20-01 on May 8, 2020.
EXHIBIT 32.1




        Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sockeye
Seafood Group, Inc. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David F. Knapfel,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of Registrant,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

   (1)  the quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.


Date:  May 11, 2006         /s/ David F. Knapfel
                              ----------------------------------------
                            By: David F. Knapfel, Chief Financial
                                Officer and Principal Accounting
                                Officer of Sockeye Seafood Group, Inc.
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 24 Filed 07/06/01 Page 1 of 2 PageID 67
Case 3:00-cv-02377-N Document 24 Filed 07/06/01 Page 2 of 2 PageID 68
Order entered August 16, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00218-CR

TOBY FRANCIS TRACY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-39255-M

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s August 9, 2019 second motion for extension of the time to 

file appellant’s brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before 

September 9, 2019. If appellant’s brief is not filed by September 9, 2019, this appeal may be 

abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE