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



Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Mark Castaneda, certify that:

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

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

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The registrants other certifying 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 recently
completed 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 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 function):

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: December 10, 2003 |  |                        
|                        |  |                        
|                        |  | /s/ Mark Castaneda     
|                        |  |                        
|                        |  | Mark Castaneda         
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
(18 Misc. Rep. 239.)

#### BRACKETT v. METROPOLITAN INS. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

October 29, 1896.)

Principal and Agent—Compensation—Agent as Procuring Cause.

Plaintiff, a soliciting agent for life, insurance, receiving as compensation commissions on insurance procured, is not entitled to commissions on the increased insurance where his employer induces, through another agent, an applicant secured by plaintiff to increase the amount of his application.

Appeal from Eighth district court.

Action by Cecil A. Brackett against the Metropolitan Insurance Company. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before DALY, P. J., and McADAM and BISCHOFF, JJ.

Bert Hanson, for appellant.

H. Bell, for respondent.

*376BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff was a soliciting agent for life insurance, in the employ of the defendant, with an agreement for compensation based upon the amount of insurance procured by his efforts, and this action is brought to recover the commissions which he claims to be due him for procuring a policy upon the life of one Dean for $10,000. The evidence shows that the plaintiff actually solicited and obtained from Dean an application for a policy of $5,000, and that he was paid his commission upon such policy, but thereafter one Gray, an agent of the defendant, called upon the insured, and prevailed upon him to substitute an application and receive a policy for $10,000. The plaintiff’s claim is for commission upon the additional $5,000 of insurance thus taken out, but clearly he failed to substantiate it by proof at the trial. True, he introduced the insured, Dean, to the defendant, and but for that introduction this additional $5,000 of insurance might not have been secured; but the insurance which* he actually obtained was limited to the amount of the first application, and the defendant, through Gray, procured the remainder. Granted, also, that Dean had intended at the time of his first application to subsequently take out an additional insurance of $5,000: but his evidence was that he contemplated so contracting with some insurance company other than the defendant, and the proof is that he was induced to change his intention, not through the plaintiff’s efforts, but through the agency of Gray. A finding that the plaintiff’s influence with Dean extended to this additional insurance could be founded only upon the merest conjecture, and the preponderance of the evidence was all to the contrary. Close analogy appears between this case and that of McClave v. Paine, 49 N. Y. 561, and upon the principles there applied this recovery cannot, be sustained.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event. All concur.
#### Michael WINSTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2011-5093.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 22, 2011.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Michael Winston moves for “protection” and submits various letters and a document entitled “Rule 60-B Motion.” The United States moves for leave to respond.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) Winston’s motions are denied. Arguments concerning this case should be placed in the briefs, and not in letters.

(2) The motion to respond is granted and the response is accepted. The United States should calculate its brief due date from the date of filing of this order.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

RODERICK LEON CASEY, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al., 

Defendants. 

MCSHANE, Judge: 

1: 14-cv-1973-TC 

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 

34), and the matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, I have reviewed the 

file of this case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and conclude the report is 

correct. 

1-0RDER 

Case 1:14-cv-01973-TC Document 38 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 2
Although .ivlr. Casey attempts to portray this action as more than mere negligence on the 

part of defendants, this is essentially a medical malpractice case. "J'v1edical malpractice does not 

become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner." Estelle v. Gamble, 

429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Even assuming .ivlr. Casey states a valid claim, Nurse Vickerman is 

clearly entitled to qualified immunity for failing to adequately diagnose the extent of .ivlr. 

Casey's injuries and failing to assign him a lower bunk. 

l'v1agistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is adopted in 

full. Defendants' l'v1otion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 6th day of June, 2016. 

\l-__ _ I 

L---~ ---- 11ichaell'v1cShane 

United States District Judge 

2-0RDER 

Case 1:14-cv-01973-TC Document 38 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1639 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1639

To amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 
                      to cover Federal facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 1998

 Mr. Coverdell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986 
                      to cover Federal facilities.

    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 ``Federal Facilities Community Right-
To-Know Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF FEDERAL FACILITIES UNDER THE EMERGENCY PLANNING AND 
              COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT OF 1986.

    Section 329(7) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-
Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11049(7)) is amended by inserting ``or the 
United States'' before the period at the end.
                                 <all>
```
(15 Misc. Rep. 19.)

#### BURNS v. HOUSTON, W. S. & P. F. R. CO.

(Superior Court of New York City,

General Term.

December 18, 1895.)

Harmless Error—Amendment of Complaint—Increasing Damages.

Defendant in an action for death by wrongful act, which accrued before Const, art. 1, § 18, providing that the amount recoverable in such action shall not be subject to statutory limitation, took effect, is not prejudiced , by an amendment permitting plaintiff to increase his demand for damages, if the verdict ,of the jury does not exceed the former limitation.

Appeal from jury .term.

Action by Michael F. Burns, as administrator, against the Houston, West Street & PaVonia Ferry' Railroad Company to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $5,000, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, McADAM, and GILDERSLEEVE, *JJ.*

Henry A. Robinson, for appellant.

William Sulzer, for respondent.

FREEDMAN, J.

Although it has been decided by the court of appeals that the constitutional provision that the amount recoverable in an action for damages for injuries resulting in death shall not be subject to any statutory limitation does not operate retrospectively, and does not affect causes of action accrued before the said constitutional provision went into effect, the defendant in the case at bar was not prejudiced by the amendment permitting the plaintiff to increase the demand for damages from $5,000 to $25,000, as the verdict of the jury did not exceed the limit of $5,000. Upon a careful review of the whole case, it clearly *775appears that the case was one for the jury, both upon the question of negligence and the question of contributory negligence; that no error was committed in the admission of evidence, or in refusing to dismiss the complaint; and that the verdict is not against the evidence, or against the weight of the evidence. Moreover, the verdict should not be disturbed as excessive.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Dongping Fei Power of Attorney



 Exhibit 10.20 
 Power of Attorney 
 This Power of Attorney (“Power of Attorney “) shall supersede and
replace the Power of Attorney I executed as of December 26, 2007 (“Original Power of Attorney “) upon execution. 
 I, Fei
Dongping, a Chinese citizen with Chinese Identification Card No.: 430602196908171516, and a holder of 50% of the entire registered capital in Beijing Feijie Investment Co., Ltd. (“Feijie Investment”) (“My Shareholding”), hereby
irrevocably authorize Beijing Pypo Technology Group Company Limited (“Pypo Group”) to exercise the following rights relating to My Shareholding during the term of this Power of Attorney: 
 Pypo Group is hereby authorized to act on behalf of myself as my exclusive agent and attorney with respect to all matters concerning My Shareholding,
including without limitation to: 1) attend shareholders’ meetings of Feijie Investment; 2) exercise all the shareholder’s rights and shareholder’s voting rights I am entitled to under the laws of China and Feijie Investment’s
Articles of Association, including but not limited to the sale or transfer or pledge or disposition of My Shareholding in part or in whole; and 3) designate and appoint on behalf of myself the legal representative, the executive director and/or
director, supervisor, the chief executive officer and other senior management members of Feijie Investment . 
 Without limiting the
generality of the powers granted hereunder, Pypo Group shall have the power and authority under this Power of Attorney to execute the Transfer Contracts stipulated in Exclusive Option Agreement, to which I am required to be a party, on behalf of
myself, and to effect the terms of the Share Pledge Agreement and Exclusive Option Agreement, both dated the date hereof, to which I am a party. 
 All the actions associated with My Shareholding conducted by Pypo Group shall be deemed as my own actions, and all the documents related to My Shareholding executed by Pypo Group shall be deemed to be executed by me. I hereby acknowledge
and ratify those actions and/or documents by the Pypo Group. 
 Pypo Group is entitled to re-authorize or assign its rights related to the
aforesaid matters to any other person or entity at its own discretion and without giving prior notice to me or obtaining my consent. 
 This
Power of Attorney is coupled with an interest and shall be irrevocable and continuously valid from the date of execution of this Power of Attorney, so long as I am a shareholder of Feijie Investment. 
 During the term of this Power of Attorney, I hereby waive all the rights associated with My Shareholding, which have been authorized to Pypo Group
through this Power of Attorney, and shall not exercise such rights by myself. 
  

 1 








 This Power of Attorney is written in Chinese and English; in case there is any conflict between the
Chinese version and the English version, the Chinese version shall prevail. 
  

			
	Dongping Fei
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Dongping Fei

	September 1, 2008


  

			
	Witness:	 	 /s/ Wang Xuemei

	Name:	 	Wang Xuemei
	September    , 2008

  

 2
#### HANRAHAN, Appellant, v. MAYOR. ETC., OF CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

December 18, 1895.)

Action by William Hanrahan against the mayor, etc., of the city of New York.

L. E. Warren,. for appellant.

James T. Malone, for respondent.

PARKER, J.

The dismissal of the complaint by the court at circuit was required by the decision of this court in Kelly v. Mayor, etc., 70 Hun, 208, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1. The material facts in that case and in the one under review are precisely alike. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Exhibit No.
32.1


Form
10-KSB


Alliance
Health, Inc.


File No.
0-21071








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 of Alliance Health, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sarkis J.
Kechejian, M. D., Chief Executive and 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) 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.






Date:
      October 27, 2008
                    
                    By: /s/ Sarkis J. Kechejian, M.
    D.Sarkis
      J. Kechejian, M. D.Chief
      Executive Officer andChief
      Financial Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Alliance Health, Inc. and will be retained by Alliance Health, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
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
 Plant Stress and Germplasm Development Research: Lubbock, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Projects
                        NP 301Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Lubbock, Texas Cropping Systems Research Laboratory Plant Stress and Germplasm Development Research People & Locations







Alexander  Rodriquez
                        Plant Stress and Germplasm Development Research

                        




                        
                        BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE TECHNICIAN
                        Phone: (806) 749-5560
                        
                        
                        Fax: (806) 723-5272(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
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 12

- 00762

- CV

Betty J. ETTER

, Appellant

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.

, Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 08003

Judge David A. Berchelmann Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 9, 2013

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal with each party bearing its own costs.

Appellant’s counsel has certified that he has conferred with opposing counsel who does not

oppose the motion. Accordingly, we grant the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We order

all costs of appeal taxed against the party who incurred them. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

** **

** **

** **

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**

** **

** **

        I, Joseph S. Whitaker, the Chief Executive Officer of  DSI Toys, Inc. (the “Company”), certifythat:

 

#         (1)   the Form 10-Q, filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on August 13, 2002 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

#         (2)   the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of DSI Toys, Inc.

 

 
| /s/ JOSEPH S.  WHITAKER  |
|--------------------------|
| Joseph S.  Whitaker      |
| Chief Executive  Officer |
| August 13, 2002          |

 

 

----
#### Rita W. Gordon, Appellant, v Samuel Kadet et al., Respondents.

[943 NYS2d 535]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered May 26, 2011, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered June 1, 2011, which Jenied plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint as moot, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this discrimination action, plaintiff alleges that the defendant law firm terminated her because of her age and gender. The motion court properly determined that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing that she was discharged under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination *(see Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys., Inc.,*92 AD3d 29, 35 [2011]; *Hazen v Hill Betts & Nash, LLP,*92 AD3d 162 [2012]). Even assuming arguendo that plaintiff had met that burden, defendant law firm offered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for plaintiff’s termination since she had engaged in misconduct by, over a period of several years, using a car service hundreds of times in violation of defendant’s policy. Plaintiff would commute to and from her home, and to her personal appointments and the office, and then charge those trips to various clients. Plaintiff failed to show that defendants’ stated reasons for her termina*607tion were false or pretextual or that defendants were motivated by discrimination *(see Bennett,*92 AD3d at 39).

The motion court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint to add a claim under Judiciary Law § 487 and to add a partner at the law firm as a party. Plaintiff failed to allege facts demonstrating that the law firm or its partners intended to commit deception in a letter to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee reporting plaintiff s misconduct.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining claims and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Catterson, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.