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



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Cynthia Stephens, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Pharsight Corporation;



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 officer(s) 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 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(s) 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 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 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:
June 29, 2005



|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    CYNTHIA STEPHENS                                              
|Cynthia Stephens                                                     
|Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer andCorporate Secretary
Modern Methods for 

Exploring Text Data

Peter Baumgartner

Data Scientist @ RTI International

GASP 2019
#solo10 Word Cloud

Word cloud of tweets from Science Online 2010, 

generated using Wordle (http://wordle.net).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sjcockell/4963334783

RTI International | 2
How is it tokenizing?

What tokens is it excluding?

Can I differentiate nouns, verbs, and adjectives?

Can I combine tokens with the same root word in 

a meaningful way?

Which tokens are unique for this corpus? 

Can I see a token used in context?

How will this scale to larger amounts of text?

Can I cluster words by their use?

RTI International | 3
SAMPLE DATASET

RTI International | 4

Post titles and text from 

the r/statistics and 

r/askstatistics

communities on reddit 

from December 2015 –

March 2019.

30,693 total posts.

61% from r/statistics

39% from r/askstatistics
TOKENIZATION

RTI International | 5
TOKEN ATTRIBUTES

RTI International | 6
DATA PROCESSING & LEMMA STATISTICS

RTI International | 7

Lemma POS Stopword Corpus Count Corpus 

Prob

English 

Prob

Corpus/English 

Ratio

manual NOUN FALSE 29 0.000009 0.000023 0.388

injure VERB FALSE 13 0.000004 0.000001 7.033

methods NOUN FALSE 58 0.000018 0.000277 0.063

irregular ADJ FALSE 12 0.000004 0.000015 0.243

forests NOUN FALSE 10 0.000003 0.000016 0.193

n lemmas = 74,358

sample
RTI International | 8

Interactive 

Visualization 1:

Exploring lemma 

counts and 

uniqueness by parts 

of speech

https://modern-text-exploration.netlify.com/token-statistics.html
WORD EMBEDDINGS

more on word2vec: https://jalammar.github.io/illustrated-word2vec/ RTI International | 9
WORD EMBEDDINGS &

DIMENSION REDUCTION

RTI International | 10
MERGE PROJECTION BACK TO DATASET

RTI International | 11

Lemma POS ... Component 1 Component 2

manual NOUN ... 0.934 0.734

injure VERB ... 0.723 0.222

methods NOUN ... 0.147 0.063

irregular ADJ ... 0.237 0.243

forests NOUN ... 0.717 0.182

sample
RTI International | 12

Interactive 

Visualization 2:

Exploring projections 

of word embeddings 

from word2vec

https://modern-text-exploration.netlify.com/w2v-umap.html
modern-text-exploration.netlify.com

RTI International | 13

Slides

Notebook with code

Visualizations 1 & 2

Resources
Tasha Tolar CARRIERE and Daniel Bihm Marcantel, et al. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, et al.

2019-CC-0592

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. LANDRY**

Writ denied.

CRICHTON, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

Crichton, J. would grant and assigns reasons.

*541I would grant this writ because, in my view, the trial court's imposition of $300,000 in special master fees and costs against defendant in this case was an abuse of discretion. *See* La. C.C.P. art. 1920. Further, this amount was imposed after the defendant had already advanced in excess of $ 100,000 to the special master. Under the circumstances of this case, in which causation and damages have yet to be determined, I consider this amount excessive and violative of the reasonableness requirement of R.S. 13:4165(D).
Exhibit 8

Principal subsidiaries

The principal subsidiaries of ING
Groep N.V. and their statutory place of incorporation or primary place of business are as follows:

Companies



|                                       |  |                          |  |                                                      |     |   |      |  |     |  
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------- | --- | - | ---- |  | --- | -
|                                       |  |                          |  | Proportion of ownershipand interest held by theGroup |    
|                                       |  |                          |  | 2015                                                 |     |   | 2014 | 
|Subsidiary                             |  | Country                  |  |                                                      |     |   |      |  |     |  
|ING Bank N.V.                          |  | The Netherlands          |  |                                                      | 100 | % |      |  | 100 | %
|Bank Mendes Gans N.V.                  |  | The Netherlands          |  |                                                      | 100 | % |      |  | 100 | %
|ING Lease (Nederland) B.V.             |  | The Netherlands          |  |                                                      | 100 | % |      |  | 100 | %
|ING Corporate Investments B.V.         |  | The Netherlands          |  |                                                      | 100 | % |      |  | 100 | %
|ING Real Estate B.V.                   |  | The Netherlands          |  |                                                      | 100 | % |      |  | 100 | %
|ING België N.V.                        |  | Belgium                  |  |                                                      | 100 | % |      |  | 100 | %
|ING Luxembourg S.A.                    |  | Luxembourg               |  |                                                      | 100 | % |      |  | 100 | %
|ING-DiBa A.G.                          |  | Germany                  |  |                                                      | 100 | % |      |  | 100 | %
|ING Bank Slaski S.A.                   |  | Poland                   |  |                                                      | 75  | % |      |  | 75  | %
|ING Financial Holdings Corporation     |  | United States of America |  |                                                      | 100 | % |      |  | 100 | %
|ING Bank A.S.                          |  | Turkey                   |  |                                                      | 100 | % |      |  | 100 | %
|ING Bank (Australia) Ltd               |  | Australia                |  |                                                      | 100 | % |      |  | 100 | %
|ING Bank (Eurasia) Joint stock company |  | Russia                   |  |                                                      | 100 | % |      |  | 100 | %
Case No. 16-cv-07398 NC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KASEY F. HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

IN RE CARRIER IQ, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-07398 NC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint, pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 21, 2017, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to 

amend within 28 days. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint nor had any 

further communication with the court. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without 

prejudice for failure to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. George HARRIS, a/k/a “George”, a/k/a “Mr. G.”, a/k/a “G”, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-7819.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2004.

Decided May 19, 2004.

George Harris, Appellant pro se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

George Harris filed in the district court a motion entitled “Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Relief From Judgment.” This motion, filed in 2003, was construed by the district court as a notice of appeal of the court’s 1999 denial of Harris’s successive challenge on his 1988 conviction. Although it does not appear that Harris was seeking to appeal the district court’s 1999 order, to the extent his motion was construed as a notice of appeal, such an appeal is untimely. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a). Because the appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional,” we lack jurisdiction to consider Harris’s claims. *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 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*
1 SHEPP ARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

A Limited Liability Partnership 

2 Including Professional Corporations 

GARY L. HALLING, Cal. Bar No. 66087 

3 ghalling(a),sheppardmullin.com 

MICHAEL W. SCARBOROUGH, Cal. Bar No. 203524 

4 mscarborough(a),sheppardmullin.com 

MONA SOLODKI, Cal. Bar No. 215145 

5 msolouki@sheppardmullin.co� Four Embarcadero Center, 1 i Floor 

6 San Francisco, California 94111-4109 

Telephone: 415.434.9100 

7 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 

8 Attorneys for Non-Parties 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ----�- -S-AMS-l::JN6-S-EM-IeeNBBer-eR--;-INe.-and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

SMRH:487694697.1 

Case No. 5: 17-cv-00220-LHK 

The Hon. Lucy H. Koh 

DECLARATION OF SANGHOON 

PARK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL 

SANGHOON PARK DECLARATION 1/S/O FTC'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

 Plaintiff, 

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, 

a Delaware corporation, 

 Defendant 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 832 Filed 09/12/18 Page 1 of 11
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 832 Filed 09/12/18 Page 2 of 11
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 832 Filed 09/12/18 Page 3 of 11
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 832 Filed 09/12/18 Page 4 of 11
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 832 Filed 09/12/18 Page 5 of 11
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 832 Filed 09/12/18 Page 6 of 11
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 832 Filed 09/12/18 Page 7 of 11
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 832 Filed 09/12/18 Page 8 of 11
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 832 Filed 09/12/18 Page 9 of 11
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 832 Filed 09/12/18 Page 10 of 11
1 

2 

ATTESTATION 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1 (i)(3), I , Gary L. Halling, attest that the signatory of 

3 this document, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concurs with the filing's content and 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

has authorized the filing. 

Dated: September 12, 2018 

SMRH:487694697.1 

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 

/s/ Gary L. Halling 

GARY L. HALLING

SANGHOON PARK DECLARATION I/S/0 FTC'S 

ADMrNISTRA TJVE MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 832 Filed 09/12/18 Page 11 of 11
Vanessa STUART v. STATE

CR-16-0752

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Sammie Lee SMITH IV, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4828

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
David Jacob BARROW v. STATE

CR-16-0964

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER INSTRUCTING QUALCOMM TO FILE UNDER SEAL UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF THE 

EXHIBITS TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER INSTRUCTING QUALCOMM 

TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF THE 

EXHIBITS TO QUALCOMM’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION 

TO EXCLUDE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 797, 799

On August 30, 2018, Defendant Qualcomm, Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) filed (1) a 

motion to strike portions of the rebuttal expert report of Dr. Robert Akl, ECF No. 797; and (2) a 

motion to exclude the opinions of Richard Donaldson. ECF No. 799. With both evidentiary 

motions, Qualcomm filed the redacted versions of several accompanying exhibits that Qualcomm 

seeks to seal. See ECF Nos. 798 & 800 (Qualcomm’s motions to file under seal the two 

evidentiary motions and accompanying exhibits). Qualcomm filed under seal unredacted versions 

of its evidentiary motions, see ECF Nos. 798-4 & 800-4, but Qualcomm failed to file under seal 

unredacted versions of the accompanying exhibits, as is required by Civil Local Rule 79-

5(d)(1)(D). 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 901 Filed 10/15/18 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER INSTRUCTING QUALCOMM TO FILE UNDER SEAL UNREDACTED VERSIONS OF THE 

EXHIBITS TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Court hereby ORDERS Qualcomm to file under seal unredacted versions of the 

exhibits accompanying (1) Qualcomm’s motion to strike portions of the rebuttal expert report of 

Dr. Robert Akl; and (2) Qualcomm’s motion to exclude the opinions of Richard Donaldson. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 901 Filed 10/15/18 Page 2 of 2
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Pre-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration
Statement No. 333-105259 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company Separate
Account One of our report dated March 26, 2003, relating to the financial
statements of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company, and of our report
dated February 21, 2003, relating to the financial statements of Hartford Life
and Annuity Insurance Company Separate Account One, appearing in the Statement
of Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and
to the reference to us under the heading "Independent Public Accountants" in
such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
July 31, 2003
# C_2018022EN.01002101.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 October 2017 — Dirk Harms and Others v Vueling Airlines SA

(Case C-601/17)

(2018/C 022/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dirk Harms, Ann-Kathrin Harms, Nick-Julius Harms, Tom-Lukas Harms, Lilly-Karlotta Harms, Emma-Matilda Harms, the latter four represented by their parents Dirk Harms und Ann-Kathrin Harms

Applicants:

Defendant: Vueling Airlines SA

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Must the concept of ‘reimbursement ... by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought’ in accordance with Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as referring to the amount paid by the passenger for the ticket in question, or is it the amount which the defendant air carrier has actually received, where an intermediary undertaking is involved in the booking process and collects the difference between what the passenger pays and what the air carrier receives without disclosing this?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23-b

                                CONSENT OF EXPERT

         I consent to the references to me under the headings "Item 1. Business-
Environmental Matters" and "Item 3. Legal Proceedings" in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Meritor Automotive, Inc. ("Meritor") for the year ended September
30, 1997, and under the heading "Chief Financial Officer's Review - Management's
Discussion and Analysis - Environmental Matters" in Meritor's Annual Report to
Shareowners, incorporated by reference in the Form 10-K. I also consent to the
incorporation by reference of such references into Meritor's Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-35403) pertaining to the Meritor
Savings Plan and Meritor's Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No.
333-35407) pertaining to the Meritor 1997 Long-Term Incentives Plan.

                                             /s/ David W. Greenfield
                                             --------------------------------
                                                     David W. Greenfield
                                                    Senior Vice President,
                                             General Counsel and Secretary of
                                                   Meritor Automotive, Inc.

Date:  December 19, 1997
Dane Michael DORSO v. STATE

CR-16-1205

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YING LIN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70895

Agency No. A098-955-636

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Ying Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s

(“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

FILED

JUL 02 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70895

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,

applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created

by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We

deny the petition for review.

Under the totality of the circumstances, substantial evidence supports the

agency’s adverse credibility determination based on discrepancies between Lin’s

testimony and her declaration. See id. at 1047 (petitioner’s “inability to

consistently describe the underlying events that gave rise to his fear” supported an

adverse credibility finding). Accordingly, Lin’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims fail.

Because Lin’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency found

not credible, and she points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not

she will be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim also fails. See Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.