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

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Jon A. DeLuca, 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 suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis 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 wehave: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin 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 proceduresand 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 reasonablelikely 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 recentevaluation 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2003 

|   | */s/ J**ON**A. D**E**L**UCA*                                                                        |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                                                                                                     |   |
|   | ***Jon A. DeLuca Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)*** |   |
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

Misc. No. 08-21

IN RE: COMMITTEE ON ADMISSION AND PRACTICE

O R D E R

It is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 2(a)(1) of the Court's Rules of Admission and Practice

(Rules), that the following individuals have been appointed by the Chief Judge, with the 

concurrence of the Court, to serve as members of the Committee on Admission and Practice

(Committee):

Nicholas R. Esterman, Esq. has been appointed, effective April 17, 2021, for a term 

expiring on April 17, 2024;

Sarah W. Fusina, Esq. has been appointed, effective May 10, 2021, for a term expiring on 

May 10, 2024;

Meghan K. Gentile, Esq. has been appointed, effective May 19, 2021, for a term expiring 

on May 19, 2024; and

Courtney L. Smith, Esq. has been appointed, effective May 19, 2021, for a term expiring 

on May 19, 2024.

It is further ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 2(a)(1), that the following individuals have been 

reappointed to serve as members of the Committee:

Stephen E. Castlen, Esq. has been reappointed in his role as Committee Chairman, effective 

April 17, 2021, for a term expiring on April 17, 2024;

Brent Bowker, Esq. has been reappointed, effective April 15, 2021, for a term expiring on 

April 15, 2024;

Christine Khalili-Borna Clemens, Esq. has been reappointed, effective April 17, 2021, for 

a term expiring on April 17, 2024;

Amy Richardson, Esq. has been reappointed, effective April 17, 2021, for a term expiring 

on April 17, 2024; and
2

Todd M. Wesche, Esq. has been reappointed, effective May 14, 2021, for a term expiring 

on May 14, 2024. 

DATED: May 19, 2021 FOR THE COURT:

/s/Gregory O. Block

GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF JUNE 21, 2016

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD78150 Christopher Helton vs. State of Missouri

WD78303 Craig Grandstaff vs. State of Missouri

WD78377 Larry Jones vs. State of Missouri

WD78865 David N. Briggs vs. State of Missouri

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD78510 State of Missouri vs. Thomas Joseph Presley
EXHIBIT 32.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OraLabs Holding Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSBfor the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Emile J. Jordan,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC SS. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge and belief:

(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.





/S/ EMILE J. JORDAN
----------------------------------------
EMILE J. JORDAN, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



DATED MAY 23, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
---

---

Exhibit 10.1

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 333-54356, 333-117849 and 333-136633)
pertaining to the 2003 Share Option Plan of Ceragon Networks Ltd. of our report dated June
27, 2007 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Ceragon Networks Ltd.
and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31,
2006.

|                 |                                   
|---------------- | ----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|                 | /s/ KOST FORER GABBAY and KASIERER
|Tel-Aviv, Israel | KOST FORER GABBAY and KASIERER    
|June 27, 2007    | A Member of Ernst & Young Global  



---

---
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 96-1226

HERVE J. KEPTNER, APPELLANT,

V.

TOGO D. WEST, JR.,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before NEBEKER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

The appellant argues that "the issue before [the] court in this appeal is . . . whether there is

new and material evidence [to support the reopening of an earlier, previously denied claim for

educational assistance benefits under chapter 34 of Title 38]." Appellant's Response at 5-6. The

decision denying the earlier claim became final when the appellant did not perfect an appeal. See

Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 542, 546 (1992). In order to reopen that claim, new and material

evidence in support of the claim must be presented to the Secretary. See Winters v. West, 12

Vet.App. 203 (1999) (en banc); 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105. Any action that arguably could be

construed as an attempt to reopen was not initiated until June 1992. However, section 3462 provides

an absolute bar to benefits under Chapter 34 after December 1989. See 38 U.S.C. § 3462(e) ("No

educational assistance shall be afforded [to] any eligible veteran under [Chapter 34] or chapter 36

of [Title 38] after December 31, 1989."); see also Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources

Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984) ("If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end

of the matter . . . ."). Therefore, the Secretary could not have reopened the previously denied claim

under section 3462, and the submittal of new and material evidence under section 5108 would have

been to no avail. 

Based on the foregoing analysis, the order of the Board denying benefits is AFFIRMED, for

as a matter of law granting those benefits is prohibited after December 31, 1989.

DATED: June 20, 2000 PER CURIAM.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>






                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Infinity  Capital  Group,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Gregory
H. Laborde, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 USC
section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.

Dated: September 16, 2005


/s/Gregory H. Laborde
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory H. Laborde, Chief Executive Officer and President


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

August 12, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

136950 (3) Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

CARL W. BROOKS, Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 136950 

 AGC: 0161/08 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________ 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $18.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$357.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

August 12, 2008 

Clerk
Exhibit 13.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Stora Enso Oyj (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended
December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jukka Härmälä, Chief Executive 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: June 21, 2006



/S/ JUKKA HÄRMÄLÄJukka Härmälä Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this certification required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### NUMBER 13 - 20 - 00 209 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE LUIS ALBERTO VASQUEZ

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa 1 Relator Luis Alberto Vasquez filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on April 16, 2020. Through this original proceeding, Vasquez contends that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring Vasquez “ and other defendants to appear at
p retrial conferences about the status of their case in person, and issuing a judgment nisi and a warrant for their arrest if they failed to do so.” Vasquez concedes that trial courts typically have great latitude in handling their dockets and deciding how m atters are h e ard;

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2 however, concerns regarding the COVID

- 19 pandemic demand a modification of this general rule for hearings that “are not strictly necessary.” To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. Powell v. Hocker , 516 S.W.3d 488, 495 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding); In re Harris , 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re McCann , 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). A ministerial act does not involve the use of judicial discretion; instead, a mini sterial act must be positively commanded and so plainly prescribed under the law as to be free from doubt. In re Harris , 491 S.W.3d at 33 3

– 34. In other words, the relator must have a clear right to the relief sought, meaning that the merits of the relief sought are beyond dispute. In re McCann , 422 S.W.3d at 704

. If the relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct

. of App s. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex . Crim. App. 2007). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that Vasquez has failed to meet his burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief in this ca se

. In so ruling, w e are cognizant of the profound and significant legal issues regarding public health and safety and due process implicated by this original proceeding . H owever, in examining the specific facts and circumstances presented by this record, we cannot conclude that mandamus relief is warranted for Vasquez’s claims , and we do not address here any3 claims he might attempt to raise on the behalf of others. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and all relief sought therein. LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed th e 16 t h day of April, 2020

.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6171 

To prohibit conditioning licensure of a health care provider upon participation 

in a health plan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia (for himself, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. FLEMING, 

Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. KING of 

Iowa, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. GOHMERT, 

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. POSEY, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. 

COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, and Mr. ROE of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To prohibit conditioning licensure of a health care provider 

upon participation in a health plan. 

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 ‘‘Medical Freedom Act 

5 of 2010’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6171 IH

1 SEC. 2. HEALTH CARE PROVIDER LICENSURE CANNOT BE 

2 CONDITIONED ON PARTICIPATION IN A 

3 HEALTH PLAN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

5 Human Services and any State (as a condition of receiving 

6 Federal financial participation under title XIX of the So7 cial Security Act) may not require any health care pro8 vider to participate in any health plan as a condition of 

9 licensure of the provider in any State. 

10 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

11 (1) HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘‘health plan’’ 

12 has the meaning given such term in section 1171(5) 

13 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d(5)), 

14 and includes a basic health program established 

15 under section 1331 of the Patient Protection and 

16 Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), a quali17 fied health plan offered by a qualified nonprofit 

18 health insurance issuer under the Consumer Oper19 ated and Oriented Plan (CO–OP) program under 

20 section 1322 of such Act, a qualified health plan of21 fered under a health care choice compact under sec22 tion 1333 of such Act, a multi-state qualified health 

23 plan offered under section 1334 of such Act, or 

24 other health plan offered under title I of such Act. 

25 (2) HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.—The term 

26 ‘‘health care provider’’ means any person or entity 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6171 IH

1 that is required by State or Federal laws or regula2 tions to be licensed, registered, or certified to pro3 vide health care services and is so licensed, reg4 istered, or certified, or exempted from such require5 ment by other statute or regulation. 

6 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the mean7 ing given such term for purposes of title XIX of the 

8 Social Security Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Hill, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Albert P. Williams, J.), rendered October 22, 1985, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]) and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate term *557of 5 to 10 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

At the trial, over defendant’s objection, the Judge submitted to the jury written portions of its charge which covered the contents of the indictment and the statutory elements of robbery in the second degree and the lesser included offense of attempted robbery in the second degree. This was "to assist you [the jurors] in reaching your verdict.”

As conceded by respondent, this was error, requiring reversal of the conviction and a new trial under the clear holding by the Court of Appeals in *People v Owens*(69 NY2d 585; *see also, People v Rhyne,*121 AD2d 954; *People v Compton,*119 AD2d 473). Under the holding of these cases, the submission in writing of a portion of the charge "created the potential for prejudice by inviting the jury to place undue emphasis on those matters contained in the written submission, subordinating those portions of the charge—favorable to the defense— contained in the oral charge” *(People v Owens, supra,*at 591). This was error, which the court held could not be deemed harmless, since it resulted in an unbalanced charge by highlighting certain principles to the exclusion of others and thereby severely prejudicing defendant’s right to a fair trial *(People v Owens, supra; cf., People v Vincenty,*68 NY2d 899; *People v Townsend,*67 NY2d 815).

Accordingly, we vacate the conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Concur—Sandler, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.
# Application Procedures: Getting Derivative Refugee or Asylum Status for your Spouse

If you entered the United States as a refugee within the past 2 years or were granted asylee status within the past 2 years, and are applying for derivative refugee or asylum status for your spouse, you must submit:
                - Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition
                - Proof of your status as a  refugee  or  asylee
                - Recent, clear photograph of your spouse
                - Copy of your marriage certificate
                - Copy of any divorce decrees, death certificates or annulment decrees if you or your spouse have been previously married
                - Any evidence of legal name change if you changed your name or your spouse changed his or her name

You must file a Form I-730 petition for your spouse within 2 years of the date you were granted asylum status or within 2 years of admission to the United States as a refugee. This time period may be extended for humanitarian purposes.

No appeal is available for a denial of a Form I-730 petition. See the Form I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition page for more information about this petition. No fees are required to submit Form I-730.

## Spouse Application Responsibilities

                - If your spouse is outside the United States, he or she will be notified to go to the local U.S. consulate to complete the processing. 
                - If your spouse is currently inside the United States, USCIS will notify your spouse if the application is approved by sending you  Form I-797, Notice of Action .

**Note**: A spouse who receives derivative refugee or asylum status cannot file a Form I-730 petition on behalf of any other relatives.

09/03/2009

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
Order entered October 22, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00248-CV

CONNIE MARIE MACINNES, Appellant

V.

DEBORAH BUTTS, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC1203784I

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s October 20, 2014 motion for an extension of time to file an 

amended brief. We ORDER the amended brief tendered to this Court by appellant on October 

17, 2014 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE