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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Edward C. English,certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PRAECISPHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 5, 2006

 

 
| /s/ Edward C. English   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Edward C. English       |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Sugarcane Research: Houma, LA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Houma, Louisiana Sugarcane Research People & Locations







Mandy  Guidry
                        Sugarcane Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Aid
                        Phone: (985) 879-2172
                        
                        
                        Fax: (985) 876-8072(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Opinion issued September 24, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 00680
- CR

——————————— IN RE STEVEN ALLEN G OMEZ , Relator

O riginal Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus 1

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING

Relator Steven Allen Gomez , an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the trial court and the Texas Board of

1 Counsel for Appellant: Pro se Counsel for Appellee: unknown Trial court Judge: Hon. Lonnie Cox, 56th District Court of Galveston County; Ressie Owens, Chair of Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles2

Pardons and Paroles refuse to r ule on his request to modify his parole terms. 2 We
dismissed th e petition after receiving a motion to dismiss filed under relator’s signature . Relator has moved for rehearing on the ground that the dismissal motion was not filed by him but by another prison inmate who lacked authority to request
dismissal on relator’s behalf. We grant relator’s motion for rehearing , 3 withdraw

our prior opinion , and issue this opinion in its stead.
This Court has no jurisdiction to grant relator’s request for relief against the
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles . By statute, we only have the authority to
issue a writ of mandamus against a “judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction . See T EX
. G OV ' T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221(a)

− ( b) (West 2004) (emphasis added). The issua nce of a writ compelling the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to provide r elator the requested relief is not necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction

. Accordingly, that part of relator’s petition requestin g relief against the
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is outside the scope of our original

2 The underlying case is State v. Gomez , No. 02CR2058, in the 56th District Court of Galveston County, Texas.

3 Rule 4 9.2 o f the Texas Rules of Appellate P rocedure provides that “[a] motion [for rehearing] will not be granted unless a response has been filed or requested by the Court.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 49.2. We conclude that there is good cause to suspend the applicati on of rule 49.2 in this case
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2 (permitting appellate courts to “suspend a rule’s operation in a particular case” on its own initiative in order “to expedite a decision or for other good cause”)

. Given our decision to deny mandamus reli ef , we decline to impose upon the real party in interest the expense of filing a response to the rehearing motion.3

jurisdiction . We deny the remainder of the relief requested in relator’s petition , and we dismiss all outstanding motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Jus tices Jennings, Huddle, and Brown. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Fruit and Tree Nut Research: Byron, GA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Byron, Georgia Fruit and Tree Nut Research People & Locations







Rebekah  Hartley
                        Fruit and Tree Nut Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Laboratory Technical
                        Phone: (478) 956-6448
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1355

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located in New

Haven, Connecticut, as the ‘‘Richard C. Lee United

States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1355 ES

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF RICHARD C. LEE UNITED

2 STATES COURTHOUSE.

3 The United States courthouse located in New Haven,

4 Connecticut, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Rich5 ard C. Lee United States Courthouse’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘Richard C. Lee United States

11 Courthouse’’.

Passed the Senate June 2, 1998.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1355

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located

Lee United States Courthouse’’.in New Haven, Connecticut, as the ‘‘Richard C.
#### The United States, Plaintiffs in error, *v.*One Package of Merchandise. Lion, Pinsard, and Co., Claimants.

The decision in the two preceding eases again affirmed.

This case was brought up, by writ of error, from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.

It was similar, in its circumstances, to the case of the United States *v.*Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, and was argued by *Mr.*Cushing, attorney-general, at the same time.

Mr. .Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

The libel of information was filed, in this ease, in the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, for the condemnation and forfeiture of one package of goods ;• the entry, as charged, having been made upon an invoice in which the goods were invoiced under their actual cost value at the place of exportation, with a design to defraud the duties. After the evidence was heard, the jury, under the instructions, found a verdict for the plaintiffs.

The court afterwards arrested the judgment for the plaintiffs, and directed a judgment for the claimants, on the ground that the 66th section of the act of 1799 had been repealed; which judgment was affirmed, on error, by the circuit court.

For the reason given in the case of the United States *v.*Sixty-seven Packages of Dry Goods, the judgment below must be reversed, and the record remitted to the court for further proceedings, in conformity to the opinion of this court.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL dissented.

*Order.*

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the. United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered ■ and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court in this caiise be and the same is hereby reversed, and that this, cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the said circuit court for further proceedings to be had therein in conformity to the opinion of this court.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 43624]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16988]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 10, 2021 / 
Notices

[[Page 43624]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Submission for OMB Review; Notice of Request for Emergency 
Approval

May 13, 2021.
    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (PRA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has submitted a 
request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a six-month 
emergency approval of the following information collection: ICR 0596-
NEW, Grant or Agreement Award Face Sheet. The requested approval would 
enable the collection of this information and the implementation of 
this program while USDA completes the normal PRA approval process for 
ICR 0596-0217.

Forest Service

    Title: Grant or Agreement Award Face Sheet.
    OMB Control Number: 0596-NEW.
    Summary of Collection: The 2018 Farm Bill expanded the ability for 
tribes to enter into agreements with the Forest Service to manage 
programs implementing the Tribal Forest Protection Act (``638 
agreements,'' pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). The proposed information collection 
approves the use of a new form needed to execute these agreements. In 
conjunction with the Intertribal Timber Council, the Forest Service 
assessed the status of development of demonstration project agreements 
under this important new authority and anticipates the need to evaluate 
and execute numerous projects in the near future. It is critical that 
the agency be able to support these important economic development 
projects in a timely fashion.
    If approved for emergency use, this form will be combined with 
0596-0217 at the time of renewal (expiration date is 12/31/2021).

Levi S. Harrell,
Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-16988 Filed 8-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
#### Tracy A. HAYNES, Sr., an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA; et al, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-56803.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 25, 2011.

Tracy A. Haynes, Sr., Rancho Cucamon-ga, CA, pro se.

*967Julie E. Patterson, Esquire, Stuart Winston Price, Bryan Cave LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *967*See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Tracy A. Haynes, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *King v. California,*784 F.2d 910, 912 (9th Cir.1986). We affirm.

We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its order filed on November 4, 2009 dismissing Haynes’s second amended complaint.

Haynes’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We do not consider Haynes’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal. *See Bias v. Moynihan,*508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir.2007).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case: 1:02-cv-02474 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/25/03 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:52
Case: 1:02-cv-02474 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/25/03 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:53
Case: 1:02-cv-02474 Document #: 13 Filed: 09/25/03 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:54
#### In the Matter of Caesar Stapleton, Petitioner, v William J. Connolly, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 482]

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Albert Prack, Acting Director of Special Housing/Inmate Disciplinary Program, on behalf of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, dated August 18, 2010, which affirmed the determination of a hearing officer, dated May 26, 2010, made after a Tier III disciplinary hearing, finding that the petitioner violated prison disciplinary rules and imposing penalties.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The determination that the petitioner committed the charged violations of prison disciplinary rules was supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Mills v Fischer,*85 AD3d 1033 [2011]; *Matter of Garcia v Fischer,*63 AD3d 835 [2009]). The petitioner’s remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court *(see Matter of Lumpkin v*
      *862
      *Fischer,*93 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2012]; *Matter of Correnti v Prack,*93 AD3d 970, 971 [2012]; *Matter of Brown v Fischer,*91 AD3d 1336, 1337 [2012]; *Matter of Collins v Fischer,*89 AD3d 1355, 1356 [2011]; *Matter of Salvatierra v Weeden,*88 AD3d 728 *[2011]).*Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 112

To amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the manufacture,

importation, and sale of ammunition capable of piercing police body armor.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

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

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the

manufacture, importation, and sale of ammunition capable of piercing police body armor.

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 ‘‘Law Enforcement Offi5 cers Protection Amendment Act of 1997’’.

6 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERC7 ING AMMUNITION.

8 Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States

9 Code, is amended—

10 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (i);
2

•S 112 IS

1 (2) by striking the period at the end of clause

2 (ii) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

3 (3) by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘(iii) a projectile that may be used in

5 a handgun and that the Secretary of the

6 Treasury, in consultation with the Attor7 ney General determines, pursuant to sec8 tion 926(d), to be capable of penetrating

9 body armor.’’.

10 SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF ARMOR PIERCING CAPABILITY

11 OF PROJECTILES.

12 Section 926 of such title is amended by adding at

13 the end the following:

14 ‘‘(d) Not later than 1 year after the date of enact15 ment of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate

16 regulations based on standards to be developed by the Sec17 retary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney

18 General, for the uniform testing of projectiles to determine

19 whether such projectiles are capable of penetrating Na20 tional Institute of Justice Level II–A body armor.’’.

21 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

22 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums

23 as may be necessary for the Secretary of the Treasury and

24 the Attorney General to—
3

•S 112 IS

1 (1) develop and implement performance stand2 ards for armor piercing ammunition; and

3 (2) promulgate regulations for performance

4 standards for armor piercing ammunition.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 44466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17277]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 11497]


Designation of Bonomade Machude Omar as a Specially Designated 
Global Terrorist

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 
1(a)(ii)(B) of E.O. 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by E.O. 
13268 of July 2, 2002, E.O. 13284 of January 23, 2003, and E.O. 13886 
of September 9, 2019, I hereby determine that the person known as 
Bonomade Machude Omar, also known as Abu Sulayfa Muhammad, also known 
as Abu Suraqa Suraqa Filho, also known as Abu Surakha, also known as 
Ibn Omar, is a leader of ISIS-Mozambique, a group whose property and 
interests in property are blocked pursuant to a prior determination by 
the Secretary of State pursuant to E.O. 13224.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of E.O. 13224 that 
prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might 
have a constitutional presence in the United States would render 
ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order 
because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine 
that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this 
determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United 
States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures 
authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.
    Authority: E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786.

    Dated: July 28, 2021.
Antony J. Blinken,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2021-17277 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-ad-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

BRIAN CHRISTOPHER MCCLASKEY, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 63 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.