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



CERTIFICATION



I, Edward J. Granaghan, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the condensed consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly
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 quarterly 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 we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants registered public accounting firm 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 12, 2005



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Edward J. Granaghan      
|Edward J. Granaghan          
|Senior Vice President and    
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Financial Officer)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSHUA P. COLA , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 2498

[ June 3, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Caroline C. Shepherd

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2004

- CF

- 000517

- A XXX

- MB

.
Joshua P. Cola, Indiantown , pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano,
Ass istant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ROSS , D AMOORGIAN and G ERBER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20733-20734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9579]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 558


New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feeds; Bambermycins; Technical 
Amendment

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is updating the animal 
drug regulations to correctly reflect the previously approved use level 
for bambermycins Type C medicated cattle feed. This document amends the 
regulations to state the correct use level is 2 to 40 grams (g) of 
bambermycins per ton of feed. This action is being taken to improve the 
accuracy of the agency's regulations.

DATES:  This rule is effective April 18, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Caldwell, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine (HFV-126), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., 
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-0217.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Hoechst Roussel Vet, Perryville Corporate 
Park III, P.O. Box 4010, Clinton, NJ 08809-4010, is sponsor of NADA 
141-034 that provides for use of GAINPRO<Register> (bambermycins) Type 
A medicated articles to make Type B and Type C medicated cattle feeds. 
In its approval letter of October 17, 1994, the Center for Veterinary 
Medicine approved the use of Type C medicated feeds containing 2 to 40 
g of bambermycins per ton of feed, used to provide 10 to 20 milligrams 
bambermycins per head per day for increased rate of weight gain in 
pasture cattle. At this time, 21 CFR 558.95(d)(4)(ii) is amended by 
removing ``4 to 20'' and adding in its place ``2 to 40'' to reflect the 
correct Type C medicated feed levels.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C. 
804(3)(A) because

[[Page 20734]]

it is a rule of ``particular applicability.'' Therefore, it is not 
subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558

    Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and 
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is 
amended as follows:

PART 558--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS

    1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.

Sec. 558.95  [Amended]

    2. Section 558.95 Bambermycins is amended in paragraph (d)(4)(ii) 
by removing ``4 to 20'' and adding in its place ``2 to 40''.

    Dated: March 17, 2000.
Claire M. Lathers,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine.
[FR Doc. 00-9579 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Exhibit 32.2



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 Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Steinkopf, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Timothy J. Steinkopf                         
|Timothy J. Steinkopf                             
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 9, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2444 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2444

  To authorize the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to award grants for 
         studying the process of continuous drug manufacturing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2015

 Mr. Guthrie introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to award grants for 
         studying the process of continuous drug manufacturing.

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

SECTION 1. GRANTS FOR STUDYING THE PROCESS OF CONTINUOUS DRUG 
              MANUFACTURING.

    (a) In General.--The Commissioner of Food and Drugs may award 
grants to institutions of higher education and nonprofit organizations 
for the purpose of studying and recommending improvements to the 
process of continuous manufacturing of drugs and biological products 
and similar innovative monitoring and control techniques.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``drug'' has the meaning given to such term in 
        section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
        U.S.C. 321).
            (2) The term ``biological product'' has the meaning given 
        to such term in section 351(i) of the Public Health Service Act 
        (42 U.S.C. 262(i)).
            (3) The term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
        meaning given to such term in section 101 of the Higher 
        Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 to 
carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20332

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROLANDO EUCEDA-LOPEZ, also known as Rolando Euceda, also known as 

Molojo Palmarez, also known as Rolando Lopez Euceda, also known as Rolando 

Euceda Lopez, also known as Edgardo David Castillo-Castellano, also known 

as Edgardo David Castillo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-214-1

Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rolando EucedaLopez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Euceda-Lopez has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-20332 Document: 00512598039 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
No. 13-20332

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-20332 Document: 00512598039 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
#### In the Matter of County of Suffolk, Appellant, v Suffolk County Local 852 of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Respondent.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate so much of an arbitration award as determined that the County of Suffolk violated the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement between it and the respondent by charging the absence of certain employees because of snow conditions to the accrued annual leave time of those employees, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated April 23, 1984, which denied the application.

Justice Eiber has been substituted for the late Justice Gibbons *(see,*22 NYCRR 670.2 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The standards of CPLR article 78 are not available to broaden review of an arbitration award. The parties may not vary by agreement the exclusive and narrow CPLR article 75 grounds for review of such awards, as they are designed to effect public policy encouraging arbitration and discouraging litigation over arbitration awards *(see, Integrated Sales v Maxell Corp.,*94 AD2d 221, 224; *Kwasnik v Willo Packing Co.,*61 AD2d 791, 793; *Levine v Klein,*70 AD2d 532).

Under the standards of CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) the arbitrator’s award was not violative of strong public policy, was not totally irrational, and did not exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power *(see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats],*61 NY2d 299, 308; *Matter of Albany County Sheriff’s Local 775 [County of Albany],*63 NY2d 654). The arbitrator’s determination that the County Executive abused his discretion under the agreement is rational. The County Executive had the discretion to declare a snow emergency and to permit employee absences without charging the lost time to *396leave accruals. He did not declare an emergency and by charging the absences of employees from the heavily hit Riverhead area to accruals, he indirectly encouraged violation of the lawful directives of the town closing its roads. "Parties who agree to refer contract disputes to arbitration must recognize that ' "[arbitrators may do justice” and the award may well reflect the spirit rather than the letter of the agreement’ ” *(Matter of Local Div. 1179 [Green Bus Lines],*50 NY2d 1007, 1009, quoting from *Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn.,*41 NY2d 578, 582). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.
# C_2021170EN.01000101.xml

| 6.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10225 — AES/Coatue/Schneider Electric/Uplight)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 170/01)

On 28 April 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10225. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10225. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### Alex D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jon OZMINT, Director SCDC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-7348.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 17, 2011.

Decided: April 20, 2011.

Alex D. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lindemann, Davidson & Lindemann, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alex D. Taylor appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Taylor v. Ozmint,*No. 1:09-cv-00915-TLW (D.S.C. Sept. 16, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
(December 23, 1986)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Herbert Washington, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Williams, J., at suppression hearing; Hornblass, J., at trial with a jury), rendered February 4, 1983, convicting defendant of robbery in the first and second degrees and sentencing him as a persistent violent felony offender to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 12 years to life and 8 years to life, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the sentences and to remand the matter for resentencing.

*255As the People concede with commendable candor, it was error to sentence defendant as a persistent violent felony offender based on convictions entered on June 4 and June 24, 1975, since defendant had not been sentenced on the first felony when he committed the second one. *(See, People v Morse,*62 NY2d 205.) The sentences, accordingly, must be vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

We have considered defendant’s other appellate contentions, and are persuaded that they disclose no error justifying reversal of the conviction. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Sullivan, Asch and Lynch, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50488

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Bonifacio Eduardo Trujillo-Gutierrez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 4:20-CR-587-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Bonifacio Trujillo-Gutierrez appeals his sentence for illegal reentry 

after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). For the first time 

on appeal, Trujillo-Gutierrez contends that the sentence is unconstitutional 

because his indictment alleged only those facts sufficient for a conviction 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances 

set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 3, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50488 Document: 00516116027 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2021
No. 21-50488

2

under § 1326(a) and did not include any allegations of a prior conviction 

necessary for the § 1326(b)(1) enhancement.

Trujillo-Gutierrez concedes that this argument is foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226−27 (1998), but seeks 

to preserve the issue for further review. The government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, agreeing that the issue is foreclosed, 

and in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief.

As the government says and Trujillo-Gutierrez concedes, the sole 

issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres. See United States 

v. Wallace, 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625−26 (5th Cir. 2007). Because the government’s 

position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial 

question as to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 

406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is proper.

Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and 

the judgment is AFFIRMED. The government’s alternative motion for an 

extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

Case: 21-50488 Document: 00516116027 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2021
#### Mayor, Etc., of the City of New York, Respondent, v. Smith, Appellant.

*(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.*

June 26, 1890.)

Appeal from third district court.

Argued before Allen, P. J., and Bookstaver, J.

*Kohn*& *Ruck,*for appellant. *L. Steckler,*for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                           Subsidiaries of Registrant

As of December 31, 1996, the following were wholly-owned subsidiaries of the
registrant:

Intensiva Hospital of Akron, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Columbus, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Corpus Christi, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Eastern Oklahoma, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Evansville, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Flint, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Fort Wayne, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Greater St. Louis, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Indianapolis, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Kansas City, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Muskegon, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Northwest Indiana, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Oklahoma City, Inc.

Intensiva Hospital of Topeka, Inc.

                                       37
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1538

In re: KIM LEIGHTON MCBRIDE,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(Nos. 3:17-cr-00132-JAG-EWH-1, 3:19-cv-00533-JAG)

Submitted: September 20, 2022 Decided: October 4, 2022

Before HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kim Leighton McBride, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1538 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/04/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kim Leighton McBride petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district 

court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He seeks an order from 

this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals 

that the district court has denied relief on McBride’s § 2255 motion. United States v. 

McBride, No. 3:17-cr-00132-JAG-EWH-1 (E.D. Va. Aug. 31, 2022). Accordingly, 

because the district court has recently decided McBride’s case, we deny the mandamus 

petition as moot. We deny McBride’s motion for release on bail and 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. 

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1538 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/04/2022 Pg: 2 of 2