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 of 2002



I, Michael V. Valenza, certify that:



1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Radnor Holdings Corporation;



2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 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 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 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: November 10, 2003 |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  |
Exhibit 32.2

 

 

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Henry P. Herms, the Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer of CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

 
    - The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended April 30, 2013 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 
    - The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                             

 

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Howard Root, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| |    |                                                                                                                                                       
| | 2. | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                         
| | ------------------------
| | /s/ Howard
 Root        
| | Howard Root             
| | Chief
 Executive Officer
| | April 20,
 2010         

---
#### PEOPLE ex rel. McMAHON, Appellant, v. CREELMAN et al., Com’rs, Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Proceeding by the People of-the State of New York, on the relation of Patrick J. McMahon, against James Creelman and others, as Commissioners, etc. A. J. Talley, for appellant. H. Crone, for respondents. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 14, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23-532 Lower Tribunal No. F16-4938

________________ Ford Charlier, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Shearon Cruz, Judge. Ford Charlier, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, SCALES and HENDON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 577 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify eligibility for the 

child tax credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2011 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 

eligibility for the child tax credit. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Tax Credit In5 tegrity Preservation Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CHILD TAX CREDIT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (e) of section 24 of the 

8 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

9 ‘‘under this section to a taxpayer’’ and all that follows and 

10 inserting ‘‘under this section to any taxpayer unless— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 577 IS

1 ‘‘(1) such taxpayer includes the taxpayer’s valid 

2 identification number (as defined in section 

3 6428(h)(2)) on the return of tax for the taxable 

4 year, and 

5 ‘‘(2) with respect to any qualifying child, the 

6 taxpayer includes the name and taxpayer identifica7 tion number of such qualifying child on such return 

8 of tax.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-40694 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOEY KEITH HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CR-46-6
Before SMITH, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Joey Keith Hawkins has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 ( 1967), and United State s v . Flores , 632 F.3d 229 ( 5th Cir. 2011). Hawki n s has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Hawkins’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 8, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40694 Document: 00511949910 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2012No. 11-40694

the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell , 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant p ortions of the record reflected therein, as well as Hawkin s ’ s r e sponse. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-40694 Document: 00511949910 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE DSHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIREY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-10-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,697,094
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,948,605
<PP&E>                                       5,665,419
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,637,793
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,693,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,381
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,043,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,693,210
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,956,272
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,107,522
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             763,740
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 85,010
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             85,010
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    85,010
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Gregory Amato, Respondent, v Town of Babylon et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel appellants to reinstate petitioner to his position as Housing Inspector/Building Inspector, the appeal (by permission) is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Morrison, J.), dated May 25, 1984, which denied appellants’ motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Appellants’ time to serve an answer is extended until 15 days after service upon them of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

We agree with Special Term that: "The fact that petitioner has joined a prayer for relief which is conditional in nature and may require a subsequent referral for hearing does not warrant dismissal of his claim without a review on the merits”. *(See, Matter of Haines v Flacke,*104 AD2d 26.) Mangano, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of--

NANA Services, LLC 

Under Contract No. SP3100-06-C-OO 16 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59447 

Steven Steinberg, Esq. 

Senior Corporate Counsel 

Daniel K. Poling, Esq. 

DLA Chief Trial Attorney 

Timothy J. Ryan, Esq. 

Janet R. Wise, Esq. 

Associate General Counsel 

DLA Distribution 

New Cumberland, PA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The appeal has been withdrawn. Accordingly, it is dismissed from the Board's 

docket with prejudice. 

Dated: 9 September 2014 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59447, Appeal of NANA Services, 

LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 726 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 726

To rescind $45 billion of unobligated discretionary appropriations, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 2011

   Mr. Rubio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To rescind $45 billion of unobligated discretionary appropriations, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Decrease Spending Now Act''.

SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF UNOBLIGATED DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Of the unobligated balances of discretionary 
appropriations on the date of enactment of this Act, $45,000,000,000 is 
rescinded.
    (b) Implementation.--
            (1) In general.--The Director of the Office of Management 
        and Budget shall determine which appropriation accounts the 
        rescission under subsection (a) shall apply to and the amount 
        that each such account shall be reduced by pursuant to such 
        rescission.
            (2) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management 
        and Budget shall submit a report to the Secretary of the 
        Treasury and Congress listing the accounts reduced by the 
        rescission in subsection (a) and the amounts rescinded from 
        each such account.
    (c) Exceptions.--The rescission under subsection (a) shall not 
apply to the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
or the Social Security Administration.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bi-Optic Ventures Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harry Chew, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  May 28, 2009



/s/ Harry Chew

Harry Chew

Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Director

(Principal Executive Officer)





1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Caporizzo, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kartell, J.), *930rendered May 27, 1975, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is without merit. In reviewing the evidence underlying a criminal conviction, the standard to be applied is whether, after viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the People, a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt *(Jackson v Virginia,*443 US 307; *People*v *Contes,*60 NY2d 620). The evidence adduced by the People met this standard; the minor inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony did not undermine her credibility *(see, People v Concepcion,*38 NY2d 211). As the fact finder, the trial court was fully aware of the discrepancies existing in the testimony of witnesses for both sides. As such, we see no reason to disturb the verdict rendered by the trial court, for it was fully supported by the evidence adduced at trial *(see, People v Rosenfeld,*93 AD2d 872; *People v Rodriguez,*72 AD2d 571). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### REILLY, Respondent, v. FITZ GERALD et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 22, 1912.)

Action by Alice Reilly against William E. Fitz Gerald and others. J. J. Fitz Gerald, for appellants. I. R. Oeland, for respondent. No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
#### FLUORO ELECTRIC CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SMITH TRANSPORT LIMITED, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued April 25, 1960

Decided May 9, 1960.

*Mr. Jerome S. Lieb*argued the cause for the defendant-appellant *(Messrs. Earlcavy & Lieb,*attorneys).

*Mr. Arthur Slavitt*argued the cause for the plaintiff-respondent.

Pee Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of Judge Conford in the court below.

Burling, J., concurring in result.

*For*affirmance—Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Burling, Jacobs, Prancis, Proctor, Hall and Schettino—7.

*For*reversal—Hone.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 11576 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
GEORGE SINGLETERRY, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16

- CR

- 228

- 3

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent George Singleterry, Jr. , has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Singleterry h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 24, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-11576 Document: 00515048201 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2019No. 18

- 11576

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to wi thdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-11576 Document: 00515048201 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2019
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0154 DENIS AGUADO,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant's motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension oftime to and including August 16,2021 within which to prepare,file,and serve Appellant's opening brief on appeal. DATED this t CI 1

'day ofJuly, 2021. For the Court,

ChiefJustice 

# FILED

JUL 1 5 2021 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court State of Montana 07/15/2021
Case Number: DA 21-0154
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 37166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14920]



[[Page 37166]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career Development 
Applications (K08/K23).
    Date: July 29, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 
6700 B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ashley Fortress, Ph.D., Designated Federal 
Official, Division of Extramural Activities, National Eye Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 6700 B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, 
Bethesda, MD 20817, (301) 451-2020, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c6a7b5aeaaa3bfe8a0a9b4b2b4a3b5b586a8afaee8a1a9b0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8cedffe4e0e9f5a2eae3fef8fee9ffffcce2e5e4a2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 8, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-14920 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>