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



Exhibit 31.02
 HARTFORD LIFE, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ENACTED BY SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hartford Life, 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 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)
    
    [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained
in SEC Release 34-47986];c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    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 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; andb)
    
    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.
  By:
    
    /s/ Lizabeth H. ZlatkusLizabeth H. Zlatkus
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 46
# C_2019363EN.01001901.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/19

---

Action brought on 26 July 2019 – TestBioTech v Commission

(Case T-534/19)

(2019/C 363/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision of 20 May 2019, refusing to revoke or amend Commission Implementing Decision 2018/2046 of 19 December 2018; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision of 20 May 2019, refusing to revoke or amend Commission Implementing Decision 2018/2046 of 19 December 2018; (1)

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an error of law in that the Commission conducted its assessment of the maize in question in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 641/2004. (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law in that the Commission conducted its assessment of the maize in question in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 641/2004. (2)

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of scientific assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of scientific assessment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission unlawfully failed to request an event-specific post-marketing monitoring plan. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission unlawfully failed to request an event-specific post-marketing monitoring plan.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/2046 of 19 December 2018 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122, and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017 and 59122 and repealing Decision 2011/366/EU (notified under document C (2018) 8238) (OJ 2018 L 327, p. 70).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 641/2004 of 6 April 2004 on detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the application for the authorisation of new genetically modified food and feed, the notification of existing products and adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material which has benefited from a favourable risk evaluation (OJ 2004 L 102, p. 14).

---
#### James Arthur MATTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-16112.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 14, 2011.

Filed July 11, 2011.

*297Ben Rosenfeld, Law Office of Dennis Cunningham, San Francisco, CA, Daniel Stotter, Stotter & Associates LLC, Corvallis, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

lia C. Deiss, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: SCHROEDER and BEA, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

James Arthur Mattson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for attorney fees and costs under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. section 552 *et seq.*Mattson contends the district court failed properly to apply the 2007 Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government Act amendments to the FOIA fee provision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

To be eligible for fees uiider the FOIA fee section at issue, a party must show the filing of the lawsuit brought about “a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(ii). Before Mattson filed the lawsuit, the Government informed Mattson it would conduct a further search for cross references.1 ER 108 ¶ 12. The record shows the documents produced after Mattson filed his lawsuit were located due to the Government’s efforts to search for other files it might have at its local offices and cross references. ER 171 and 189. Mattson did not establish the Government changed its position because, for one thing, Mattson never proved the Government ever took the position that it was refusing to produce these documents. Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded, under the FOIA fee provision, that Mattson is not eligible for fees under the FOIA.

We decline to address Mattson’s contention that the Government waived its right to challenge Mattson’s entitlement to fees. Because Mattson is not eligible for fees, we do not consider issues pertaining to entitlement to fees. *Summers v. Dept. of Justice,*569 F.3d 500, 505 (D.C.Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Cross references are defined as "a mention of you by name or personal identifier in a file relating to another individual, organization, event, activity, or the like.” ER 171.
# Official Journal C 326/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 326 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 582 October 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 326

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 582 October 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory Acts |
| | COUNCIL |
| 2015/C 326/1 | Position (EU) No 12/2015 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area Adopted by the Council on 13 July 2015 | 1 |
| 2015/C 326/2 | Statement of Council's reasons: Position (EU) No 12/2015 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area | 12 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory Acts

COUNCIL

2015/C 326/1

Position (EU) No 12/2015 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area Adopted by the Council on 13 July 2015

1

2015/C 326/2

Statement of Council's reasons: Position (EU) No 12/2015 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area

12

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darrell Walker, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 911] —

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered April 27, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

*1241Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the testimony at the suppression hearing was not patently incredible or unworthy of belief *(see People v Rivera,*27 AD3d 489, 490 [2006]). The hearing court properly found that the police had probable cause for the defendant’s arrest *(see People v Jones,*90 NY2d 835 [1997]; *People v McRay,*51 NY2d 594, 601-602 [1980]; *People v Carter,*198 AD2d 229 [1993]; *People v Jones,*186 AD2d 681 [1992]). Accordingly, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence recovered pursuant to a lawful search of the defendant *(see People v Hall,*10 NY3d 303, 310 [2008], *cert denied*555 US 938 [2008]; *People v Clayton,*57 AD3d 557 [2008]; *People v Butler,*27 AD3d 365 [2006]).

The trial court properly allowed the People to question the defendant about prior drug arrests after the defendant opened the door to that line of inquiry *(see People v Fardan,*82 NY2d 638, 646 [1993]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see*CPL 470.15 [2] [c]; [6] [b]; 470.20 [6]; *People v Thompson,*60 NY2d 513, 519 [1983]; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). The sentencing court providently exercised its discretion in declining to direct that the defendant be enrolled in the Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment program *(see*Penal Law § 60.04 [6]; *People v Herring,*74 AD 3d 1579 [2010]). Mastro, A.P.J., Florio, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

SHERMAN DOUGHTRY,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D23-1677

LT Case No. 2021-303880-MMDB

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed July 25, 2023 

3.850 Appeal from the County Court 

for Volusia County, 

David H. Foxman, Judge. 

Sherman Doughtry, Daytona Beach, 

pro se. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Caldwell, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

MAKAR, JAY and KILBANE, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

NICO VINCENZO GALLO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1249

[October 21, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Sherwood Bauer Jr., 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016CF000919A.

Nico Vincenzo Gallo, Lowell, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2



PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED



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



In connection with this annual report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the twelve months ended June 26, 2004 (the
Report), I, Michael D. Craighead, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



September 7, 2004



By:

/s/ Michael D. CraigheadMichael D. CraigheadChief Financial OfficerPericom Semiconductor Corporation
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 41971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16596]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the 
agreements to the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by mail, 
Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Comments will be 
most helpful to the Commission if received within 12 days of the date 
this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of agreements are 
available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or 
[email protected].
    Agreement No.: 201366.
    Agreement Name: Hoegh Autoliners/Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean/EUKOR 
Car Carriers Space Charter Agreement.
    Parties: Hoegh Autoliners, Inc.; Wallenius Wilhelmsen Ocean AS; and 
EUKOR Car Carriers, Inc.
    Filing Party: Wayne Rohde; Cozen O'Connor.
    Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes Hoegh and WWO/EUKOR to charter 
space to and from each other in all U.S. trades.
    Proposed Effective Date: 9/6/2021.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/48502.

    Dated: July 30, 2021.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16596 Filed 8-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
```
#### Lasana Kamara, Appellant, v Revite One Company, LLC, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 873]—

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley B. Green, J.), entered March 29, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when, while walking on the sidewalk adjacent to defendant’s building, he slipped and fell on ice. Plaintiffs opposition to defendant’s prima facie showing that it lacked notice of the alleged icy condition failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the condition was present for a sufficient period of time before the accident that defendant would have had time to discover and remedy it *(see Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*84 NY2d 972 [1994]). The record shows that it was snowing less than two hours before the accident occurred, and that defendant had performed snow removal less than four hours after the snowfall had stopped *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 16-123 [a]). Plaintiff’s contention that the ice upon which he slipped resulted from a snow accumulation that occurred several days earlier is speculative *(see Bernstein v City of New York,*69 NY2d 1020 [1987]; *Disla v City of New York,*65 AD3d 949 [2009]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Román, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officerof RWD Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to theundersigned’s knowledge:

 
| 1.     |   | The Company’s Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2003 (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 Company’s Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                         |

 

 
| Dated:  August 12, 2003 |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
|                         |
|                         | By: | /s/ Beth Marie Buck |   |
|                         |   | Beth Marie Buck, CPA |
|                         |   | Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer  (Principal Financial and Accounting  Officer) |

 

----
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 Quarterly Report of IBSG International, Inc; (the "Company")
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
      Rivers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001,
      that:





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.





Dated:
                  November
                  16, 2007
              By:
              /s/ Michael
                RiversMichael
                RiversChief
                Executive Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6818

JESSE ALMENDAREZ , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

- Appellee

.

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

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:21

- ct

- 03089

- FL )

Submitted : November 23, 2021 Decided: November 30, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jesse Almendarez , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jesse Almendarez appeals the district court’s order dismissing h is action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the district court’s earlier order. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Almendarez’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 77 5 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We deny Almendarez’s motion seeking “Reconsideration of Original Jurisdiction Cases.” We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED