alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

NANOGEN, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with
the accompanying Quarterly Report of Nanogen Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 (the Report), I, Nicholas Venuto, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |  |  |                                           
|------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|             |  | 
|May 12, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ NICHOLAS J. VENUTO                    
|             |  |  |  | Nicholas J. Venuto Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 14.14 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm To the Board of Directors
Valesul Aluminio S.A. We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (File Nos. 333-110867;
333-10867-01) on Form F-3 of Companhia Vale do Rio Doce and Vale Overseas Limited, of our audit
report dated January 7, 2003, relating to the statements of income, changes in stockholders equity
and comprehensive income/loss and cash flows of Valesul Aluminio S.A. for the year ended December
31, 2002, which report appears in the Form 20-F of Vale Overseas Limited and Companhia Vale do Rio
Doce for the year ended December 31, 2004. /s/ KPMG Auditores IndependentesKPMG Auditores Independentes
 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil May 30, 2005
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices 

# Order

December 18, 2015

150643

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150643

COA: 313670 Wayne CC: 94

- 000424

- FH

BOBAN TEMELKOSKI,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 21, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall

include among the issu es to be briefed: (1) whether the requirements of the Sex

Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq ., amount to “punishment,” see

People v Earl , 495 Mich 33 (2014); (2) whether the answer to that question is different

when applied to the class of individuals who have successfully completed probation

under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), MCL 762.11 et seq .; (3) whether

MCL 28.722(b) (defining HYTA status to be a “conviction” for purposes of SORA)

provides the defendant constitutionally sufficient due process where the defendant is

required to register pursuant to SORA as if he had been convicted of an offense,

notwithstandin g that upon successful completion of HYTA the court is required to

“discharge the individual and dismiss the proceedings” without entering an order of

conviction for the crime; MCL 762.14(1); US Const, Am XIV; Const 1963, art 1, § 17;

(4) whether, assuming that the requirements of SORA do not amount to “punishment” as

applied to the defendant, application of the civil regulatory scheme established by SORA

to the defendant otherwise violates guarantees of due process; (5) whether requiring the

defendant to r egister under SORA is an ex post facto punishment, where the registry has

been made public, and other requirements enacted, only after the defendant committed

the instant offense and pled guilty under HYTA, US Const, art I, § 10; Const 1963, art 1,

§ 10; a nd (6) whether it is cruel and/or unusual punishment to require the defendant to

register under SORA, US Const, Am VIII; Const 1963, art 1, § 16.I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 18, 2015

a1215 2

Clerk The Criminal Defens e Attorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys

Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
#### In the Matter of Garry Giannandrea, Appellant, v James B. Meehan, as Chief of the New York City Transit Police Department, et al., Respondents.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent Chief of the New York City Transit Police Department to reinstate the petitioner to the position of police officer in that Police Department, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lodato, J.), dated May 1, 1985, which dismissed the petition on the'merits.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner, a probationary police officer in the New York City Transit Police Department, failed to pass his final medical examination which was conducted on December 10, 1984. An analysis of the petitioner’s urine, by two separate tests, revealed the presence of cannabis. The petitioner was suspended and was allegedly offered the opportunity to resign or be dismissed from the Department. He chose to resign and submitted a handwritten letter to that effect. The petitioner subsequently instituted this proceeding for a judgment reinstating him to his position as a police officer on the ground that his resignation was obtained under duress and undue influence.

It is a fundamental axiom of civil service law that the employment of a probationary appointee may be terminated without specific reasons being given, without charges filed, and without a hearing *(see, Matter of Talamo v Murphy,*38 NY2d 637; *Matter of King v Sapier,*47 AD2d 114, *affd*38 NY2d 960; *Matter of Bonney v Dilworth,*99 AD2d 468). Judicial review of such a termination is limited to an inquiry of whether the termination was made in bad faith and was *807therefore arbitrary and capricious *(see, Matter of King v Sapier, supra).*The evidence in the record in this case established that the termination of the petitioner’s employment was made in good faith. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Vincent Fusco, certify that:

 

1.                                                    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of Regal Entertainment Group;

 

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; and

 

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.

 
| Date: March 22,   2018 | /s/ VINCENT FUSCO            |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                        | Vincent Fusco                     |
|                        | *Chief   Financial Officer*       |
|                        | *(Principal   Financial Officer)* |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                              Exhibit 4(a)(ii)

                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                                 NOVACARE, INC.
                             1986 STOCK OPTION PLAN

         This Second Amendment to the NovaCare, Inc. 1986 Stock Option Plan (the
"Plan") dated as of this 30th day of June, 2002, is made and adopted by J. L.
Halsey Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company").

         WHEREAS, effective as of the date hereof, NAHC, Inc. (formerly
NovaCare, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("NAHC"), has merged with and into the
Company pursuant to that certain Certificate of Ownership and Merger (the
"Merger Certificate") by and between NAHC and the Company;

         WHEREAS, the Merger Certificate provides that the Company shall assume
all of the rights and obligations of NAHC under the Plan;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1. TITLE OF PLAN.

            The title of the Plan, as set forth on the first page of the Plan,
is hereby amended to read, in its entirety, as follows:

                            "J. L. HALSEY CORPORATION
                             1986 STOCK OPTION PLAN"

         2. SECTION 1.

            Section 1 is amended and restated to read, in its entirety, as
follows:

            "1. Purposes of Plan. The purposes of this Plan, which shall be
known as the J. L. Halsey Corporation 1986 Stock Option Plan and is hereinafter
referred to as the "Plan", are (i) to provide incentives for key employees of J.
L. Halsey Corporation, a Delaware corporation (together with any and all
successors, the "Company") and its subsidiary or parent corporations (within the
respective meanings of Section 425(f) and 425(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the "Code"), and referred to herein as "Subsidiary" and
"Parent" respectively) by encouraging their ownership of the common stock, $.01
par value, of the Company (the "Stock") and (ii) to aid the Company in retaining
key employees, upon whose efforts the Company's success and future growth
depends, and attracting other such employees.

         In all other respects, the Plan is ratified and confirmed.

                            J. L. HALSEY CORPORATION,
                            a Delaware corporation

                            By: /s/ David Burt
                                -----------------------------------------------
                                Name:  David Burt
                                Title: Chief Executive Officer, President,
                                       Secretary and Treasurer
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ALEXANDER S. ORENSHTEYN,

Plaintiff

v.

CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

v.

DAVID FINK, TIMOTHY W. JOHNSON,

Sanctioned Parties-Appellants

______________________ 

2015-1056

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida in No. 0:02-cv-60478-WJZ, 

Judge William J. Zloch.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

DAVID FINK, Fink & Johnson, Houston, TX, argued for 

appellants.

 TIMOTHY J. ROUSSEAU, Goodwin Procter LLP, New 

York, NY, argued for appellee. Also represented by
 

DOUGLAS J. KLINE, Boston, MA; WILLIAM M. JAY, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and LINN,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 July 15, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 928 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to limit the authority of the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs to use bid savings on major medical facility projects 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs to expand or change the scope 

of a major medical facility project of the Department, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2011 

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

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to limit the authority 

of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to use bid savings 

on major medical facility projects of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs to expand or change the scope of 

a major medical facility project of the Department, and 

for other purposes. 

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


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 928 IS

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF 

2 VETERANS AFFAIRS TO USE BID SAVINGS ON 

3 MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY PROJECTS FOR 

4 EXPANSION OR CHANGE OF SCOPE OF 

5 MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY PROJECTS. 

6 Section 8104(d)(2) of title 38, United States Code, 

7 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub8 paragraph: 

9 ‘‘(C) The Secretary may not obligate an amount 

10 under subparagraph (A) to expand or to change the scope 

11 of a major medical facility project except pursuant to a 

12 provision of law enacted after the date on which the Sec13 retary submits to the committees described in subpara14 graph (B) notice of the following: 

15 ‘‘(i) The major medical facility project that is 

16 the source of the bid savings. 

17 ‘‘(ii) The major medical facility project for 

18 which the Secretary intends to expand or change the 

19 scope. 

20 ‘‘(iii) A description of such expansion or change 

21 of scope. 

22 ‘‘(iv) The amounts the Secretary intends to ob23 ligate for such expansion or change of scope.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.2


                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
             SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Isaacs K. Li, certify that:

1.   have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Weston Technologies
Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2004;

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 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 officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, 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: March 13, 2005


By:/s/ Isaacs K. Li
--------------------------
 Isaacs K. Li, CFO
(principal accounting officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin August Betz, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Green, J.—reckless endangerment, second degree, and criminal mischief, fourth degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
|   | (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/      Willem      Fuchter                                           |
| Willem      Fuchter                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
| Chief      Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| March      16, 2009                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
* 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 April 2, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50791 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RITA HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-544-ALL-DB

-------------------- Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rita Hernandez (“Hernandez”) appeals her conviction for importation of cocaine. Hernandez challenges the “knowledge” element of the offense, asserting that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that she knew of the cocaine hidden in the vehicle. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to theNo. 02-50791 -2- jury’s verdict, and affirms if a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Brito , 136 F.3d 397, 408 (5th Cir. 1998). When drugs are contained in a hidden compartment in a vehicle, this court requires “evidence indicating knowledge -- circumstances evidencing a consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant.” United States v. Diaz-Carreon , 915 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1990). Considered together, circumstances such as nervousness, conflicting statements to inspection officials, and an implausible story may adequately establish consciousness of guilt. Id. at 954-55. After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that Hernandez knew of the hidden cocaine. Factors supporting this conclusion include: descriptions of Hernandez’s odd behavior by the investigating agents; her statements that clearly conflict with her own prior statements and the testimony of other witnesses; and her implausible explanation for the purpose of her trip into Mexico. Therefore, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
        23.1
 16140
          SAND CANYON AVE., SUITE 100
 IRVINE,
          CALIFORNIA 92618
 **H** **ALL** **&** **C** **OMPANY**  *Certified
          Public Accountants, Inc.*
 ** (949)
          910-HALL (4255)
 TAX, FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICES
 FAX   (949)
          910-4256


**Consent
        of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
 
 We
        consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 10-KSB (File No.
        333-85414) of our report dated March 31, 2005 on our audits of the financial
        statements of Bullion River Gold Corp. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and
        for
        the years then ended.
 
 
 /s/
        Hall & Company
 Hall
        & Company
 Irvine,
        California
 April
        7,
        2006