alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
31.2
 
 **CERTIFICATIONS**
  I,
Nicholas J. Rossettos, certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the “Registrant”);
  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(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) for the small business issuer 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 (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(s) 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; 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: May 16, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Nicholas J.
      RossettosNicholas J. RossettosChief
      Financial Officer and Chief Operating
Officer
#### In the Matter of Mariella Mayorca-Piccolo, Appellant, v Stephen J. Piccolo Jr., Respondent.

Submitted March 26, 2007;

decided June 5, 2007

*995Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1972 

To provide certain requirements for the licensing of commercial nuclear 

facilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself and Mr. ENGEL) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide certain requirements for the licensing of 

commercial nuclear facilities. 

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 ‘‘Nuclear Power Licens5 ing Reform Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

7 Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 

8 U.S.C. 2133) is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (b), by inserting ‘‘, including 

10 that the facility does not pose an unreasonable 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1972 IH

1 threat to persons or the environment because of 

2 safety or security vulnerabilities (including vulner3 ability to terrorist attacks), and that there exist ade4 quate evacuation plans for emergency events and 

5 that those plans have been approved by the relevant 

6 Federal agencies and States within 50 miles of the 

7 facility’’ after ‘‘by rule establish’’; and 

8 (2) in subsection (c), by adding at the end the 

9 following: ‘‘Any such renewal shall be subject to the 

10 same criteria and requirements that would be appli11 cable for an original application for initial construc12 tion, and the Commission shall ensure that any 

13 changes in the size or distribution of the sur14 rounding population, or seismic or other scientific 

15 data not available at time of original licensing, have 

16 not resulted in the facility being located at a site at 

17 which a new facility would not be allowed to be 

18 built.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### IN THE MATTER OF JAMES E. CLARKIN, A COUNSELLOR AT LAW OF NEW JERSEY.

Argued June 6, 1961

Decided June 30, 1961.

*Mr. William JS. McGlynn*argued the cause on behalf of the Hudson County Ethics Committee.

*Mr. James TH. Olarlcin*argued the cause *pro se.*

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

Respondent was entrusted with $300 to be used to settle a claim against his client. He converted the moneys to his own use. This misconduct would not ordinarily lead to disbarment, but further circumstances permit no other course. At the oral argument respondent’s statements disclosed an inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his act. Further, he represented to us that a certified check to reimburse the client was at that very moment being hand-delivered to the client’s present attorney. We were later informed the representation was not fulfilled. *198Upon our direction, the Ethics Committee advised respondent to file an affidavit by a fixed date if he disputed the fact of non-repayment. No affidavit was filed

The respondent’s name will be stricken from the rolls.

*For disbarment*— Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Erancis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and HaneMAN — 7.

*Opposed*— None.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Grieco, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered May 7, 1985, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant, a gas station owner, was arrested after he purchased a truckload of tires from an undercover police officer. The officer had led the defendant to believe that the tires were stolen, although they were in fact loaned to the police department by a tire dealer. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to submit the defense of entrapment to the jury. However, unrebutted proof of predisposition to commit the crime charged will defeat a claim of entrapment *(People v Isaacson,*44 NY2d 511). Here the defendant failed to rebut the People’s evidence, contained in tape-recorded conversations, of his predisposition to purchase the allegedly stolen tires. Therefore, the trial court’s refusal to submit the defense to the jury was not an error. In addition, we find that the court’s rulings, which the defendant claims prevented him from establishing an entrapment defense, were proper.

The trial court erred when it instructed the jury that no unfavorable inference should be drawn from the defendant’s failure to testify when no such charge was requested by the defendant (CPL 300.10 [2]). However, we find that error to be harmless here *(see, People v Vereen,*45 NY2d 856).

The defendant further contends that the People should have been precluded from introducing photographs of the tires into evidence at the trial because the prosecutor failed to comply with Penal Law § 450.10 which provides for notice to be given a defendant before allegedly stolen property is returned to the owners. We agree that the prosecutor did not comply with this statute as the notice given to the defendant fell short of that required. However, there was no evidence that the prosecutor acted in bad faith. In determining the appropriate sanction for noncompliance with the statute "the overriding concern must be to eliminate any prejudice to the defendant while protecting the interests of society” *(People v Kelly,*62 NY2d 516, *491520). Here the photographs lessened any possible prejudice to the defendant which may have resulted from the failure to strictly comply with Penal Law § 450.10, as they, in conjunction with the invoice and tire dealer’s testimony, helped to establish the identity and value of the tires.

Finally, we do not find the sentence imposed excessive under the circumstances. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.
May 7, 2004



Richard E. Tarrant
P.O. Box 1070
Burlington, VT  05402-1070

Dear Rich:

I am writing to confirm our agreement that, effective as of May 7, 2004, the
Stock Restriction and Voting Agreement dated as of April 29, 1999 entered into
by and among you and me is terminated and is of no further force or effect.
Please acknowledge and confirm your acceptance of the foregoing by signing where
indicated below and returning it to me.



                                            /S/ AMY E. TARRANT BY
                                            RONALD L. ROBERTS AS
                                            ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Amy E. Tarrant



                                            Acknowledged and Agreed:


                                            /S/ RICHARD E. TARRANT
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Richard E. Tarrant
datetime,flow volume2015-05-20,1907.43802
#### In the Matter of State of New York, Appellant, v Richard Lester, a Patient in the Care and Custody of St. Lawrence Psychiatric Center, Respondent.

[948 NYS2d 841]

Motion for re-argument, renewal or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

KEVIN ROREECE RAY,

 Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00342-CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 2

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 1280504D)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Kevin Roreece Ray, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. Rule 42.2(a) 

permits an appellate court to dismiss a criminal appeal on the appellant’s motion at any time 

before the court’s decision. TEX.R.APP.P. 42.2(a). Because the Appellant has complied with the 

requirements of Rule 42.2(a), we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

February 19, 2014

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Juan Enriquez v. Ahmed A. Morsy

Appellate case number: 01-18-00877-CV

Trial court case number: 18-CV-0884

Trial court: 10th District Court of Galveston County

Proceeding pro se, appellant, Juan Enriquez, has requested access to the appellate 

record in this proceeding. Accordingly, the trial court clerk is directed, no later than 10 

days from the date of this order, to send a copy of the one-volume clerk’s record, filed in 

this Court on October 29, 2018, and the one-volume supplemental clerk’s record filed in 

this Court on March 12, 2019, to appellant at the address provided in his request:

Juan Enriquez

TDC# 227122

TDCJ-Terrell

1300 FM 655

Rosharon, Texas 77583.

And, the court reporter is directed, no later than 10 days from the date of this order, to 

send a copy of the reporter’s record filed in this appeal on March 7, 2019, to appellant at 

the above address. We further direct the district court clerk and the court reporter, no 

later than 15 days from the date of this order, to notify the Clerk of this Court the date on 

which delivery to appellant was made. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __May 30, 2019____
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS E ASTLAND , T EXAS J UDGMENT

GTG Automation, Inc., * From the 385 th District Court of Midland County, Trial Court No. CV

- 50420

.

Vs. No. 11

- 16

- 00317

- CV * October 31 , 2018
Kennith Wayne Harris, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C. J. (Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Willson, J., and Wright, S.C.J.
, sitting by a ssignment) (Willson, J.
, not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accor dance with this court’s opinion, we reverse the judgment of the trial court insofar as it awarded $35,000 to GTG Automation, Inc. and $60,000 to Kennith Wayne Harris, and we render judgment tha t th e parties take nothing as to tho se claims . In all other respects, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed 75% against GTG Automation, Inc. and 25% against Kennith Wayne Harris

.
#### BIGHAM v. THE STATE.

(Decided May 15, 1913.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Bernard Harwood.

James Rice, for appellant.

R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, for the State.

Anderson, J.

— Affirmed.
# L_2010018EN.01000501.xml

| 22.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 18/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 18/5

---

Statement of revenue and expenditure for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for the financial year 2009 — Amending Budget No 2

(2010/21/EU)

REVENUE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Budget 2009 | Amending budget No 2 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2 | EUROPEAN COMMUNITY SUBSIDY |
| | Title 2 — Total | 17 000 000 | | 17 000 000 |
| 5 | REVENUE FROM ADMINISTRATIVE CHAPTERS |
| | Title 5 — Total | p.m. | | p.m. |
| 9 | MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE |
| 9 0 | MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE | 40 667 | 122 000 | 162 667 |
| | Title 9 — Total | 40 667 | 122 000 | 162 667 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 17 040 667 | 122 000 | 17 162 667 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Budget 2009

Amending budget No 2

New amount

2

2

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY SUBSIDY

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY SUBSIDY

Title 2 — Total

Title 2 — Total

17 000 000

17 000 000

17 000 000

17 000 000

5

5

REVENUE FROM ADMINISTRATIVE CHAPTERS

REVENUE FROM ADMINISTRATIVE CHAPTERS

Title 5 — Total

Title 5 — Total

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

9

9

MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE

MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE

9 0

MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE

40 667

122 000

162 667

Title 9 — Total

Title 9 — Total

40 667

40 667

122 000

122 000

162 667

162 667

GRAND TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

17 040 667

17 040 667

122 000

122 000

17 162 667

17 162 667

EXPENDITURE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Appropriations 2009 | Amending budget No 2 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | STAFF |
| | Title 1 — Total | 8 811 000 | | 8 811 000 |
| 2 | BUILDINGS, EQUIPMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING EXPENDITURE |
| 2 0 | RENTAL OF BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS | 1 425 667 | 122 000 | 1 547 667 |
| | Title 2 — Total | 3 333 667 | 122 000 | 3 455 667 |
| 3 | OPERATING EXPENDITURE |
| | Title 3 — Total | 4 896 000 | | 4 896 000 |
| 4 | OTHER EXPENDITURE |
| | Title 4 — Total | p.m. | | p.m. |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 17 040 667 | 122 000 | 17 162 667 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Appropriations 2009

Amending budget No 2

New amount

1

1

STAFF

STAFF

Title 1 — Total

Title 1 — Total

8 811 000

8 811 000

8 811 000

8 811 000

2

2

BUILDINGS, EQUIPMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING EXPENDITURE

BUILDINGS, EQUIPMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING EXPENDITURE

2 0

RENTAL OF BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS

1 425 667

122 000

1 547 667

Title 2 — Total

Title 2 — Total

3 333 667

3 333 667

122 000

122 000

3 455 667

3 455 667

3

3

OPERATING EXPENDITURE

OPERATING EXPENDITURE

Title 3 — Total

Title 3 — Total

4 896 000

4 896 000

4 896 000

4 896 000

4

4

OTHER EXPENDITURE

OTHER EXPENDITURE

Title 4 — Total

Title 4 — Total

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

GRAND TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

17 040 667

17 040 667

122 000

122 000

17 162 667

17 162 667

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,176,408
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  266,124
<ALLOWANCES>                                    49,499
<INVENTORY>                                  2,806,453
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,208,053
<PP&E>                                         482,804
<DEPRECIATION>                                 259,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,664,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          545,988
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,814
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,078,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,106,716
<SALES>                                      1,442,929
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,442,929
<CGS>                                          804,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,462,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (169,334)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (386,210)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,993,024)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,993,024)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,993,024)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2009181EN.01000101.xml

| 4.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 181/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5562 — Fortis Private Equity/Kuiken)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 181/01

On 27 July 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5562. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5562. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# The Attorney General of Texas

December 13, 1978 JOHN L. HILL Attorney General
Honorable Wm.J. Renardino Montgomery County Attorney 126Courthouse Conroe, Texas 77301 Opinion No. II- 1280 Re: Whether a county has. authority to make expenditures for purpose of controlling hydrilla. Dear Mr.Benardino: You have requested our opinion regarding the authority of Montgomery County to make expenditures for the purpose of controlling hydrilla on Lake Conroe. Hydrilla, which has been described as a “noxious aquatic weed,” presently infests approximately 6,000 acres of Lake Conroe, more than 25 percent of its surface, and is spreading rapidly. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, which is by statute authorized to %ontract or use the services of department personnel for the eradication of noxious vegetation from the waters of this state,” has agreed to furnish the manpower and facilities to treat the infestation. Parks and Wildlife Code, S12.010. The Commissioners Court of Montgomery County proposes to contribute aportion of the cost of chemicals. Youaskwhether it isempowered to doso. It Is, of course, well established that a county has only those powers which have been specifically conferred upon it by the Constitution or by statute, or which may be necessarily implied therefrom. Canales v. L 214S.W.2d451,453(Tex. 1946);Anderson v. Wood, 152S.W.2d 1064 1941). Lake Conroe, although located in Montgomery County, 19’ u control of the SanJacinto River Authority. See Acts 1967,60th Leg., ch. 547, at 1212-17. Although no statute authorizesa county to control noxious vegetation, article 44181,V.T.C.S., empowers the commissioners court of any county to appropriate and expend money from the general

revenues of its county for and in behalf of public health and sanitation within its county. It has been suggested that severe hydrilla infestations pose ahaxard toboats, water skiers and swimmers. Ifthe commissioners court factually determines

p. SO58Honorable Wm.J. Benardino - Page 2 (H-1280)

that the presence of hydrilla over a significant area within the boundaries of Montgomery County constitutes a threat to “public health and sanitation,” we believe it may contribute funds to its eradication. Resolution of the facts is, of course, within the commissioners court’s jurisdiction and cannot be addressed in the Attorney General’s opinion process. SUMMARY The Commissioners Court ‘of Montgomery County may contribute funds to the control and eradication ofhydrilla on Lake Conroe if it determines that its presence within the boundaries of the county constitutes a threat to public health and sanitation within the meaning of article 44181, V.T.C.S.

‘APPROVEDi

DAVIDM.KENDALL, First Assistant

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 5059
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Robert Lynn McCarver, Appellant

No. 06

- 13

- 00030

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Red River County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.
CR01215 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour t

. We note that the appellant, Robert Lynn McCarver, has adequately indicated his inability

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AU GUST 8, 2013
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk