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



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Paul B. (Pete) Pheffer, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Standard Management 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 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 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; andc)
    
    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 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 functions):  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    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: August 13, 2004 /s/ Paul B. (Pete) PhefferPaul B. (Pete) PhefferPresident and Chief Financial Officer
 32
# L_2008223EN.01005301.xml

| 21.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 223/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 223/53

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 55/2008

of 25 April 2008

amending Annex XX (Environment) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 35/2008 of 14 March 2008 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XX to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 35/2008 of 14 March 2008 (1).

| (2) | Commission Decision 2007/589/EC of 18 July 2007 establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Decision 2007/589/EC of 18 July 2007 establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The text of point 21am (Commission Decision 2004/156/EC) of Annex XX to the Agreement shall be replaced by the following:

‘
  32007 D 0589: Commission Decision 2007/589/EC of 18 July 2007 establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 229, 31.8.2007, p. 1).’

Article 2

The text of Decision 2007/589/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 26 April 2008, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 25 April 2008.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Alan SEATTER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 182, 10.7.2008, p. 34.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 229, 31.8.2007, p. 1.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Troy NEWMAN, petitioner, v. NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION, et al.

No. 17M22.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.
Robert C. MILLS, petitioner, v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, et al.

No. 17-7533.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Gregory STESHENKO, petitioner, v. Geraldine M. ALBEE, et al.

No. 17-8321.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00216-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.F., J.J.L., and J.A.R., Children

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PA-02310

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellants in relation to this appeal 

because appellants qualify as indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.

SIGNED November 25, 2020.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
Scott W. GRAMMER, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 17-5396.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Division denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3713 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3713

To amend title 28, United States Code, provide an additional place for 
  holding court for the Western District of Washington, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2019

 Ms. DelBene (for herself and Mr. Larsen of Washington) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 28, United States Code, provide an additional place for 
  holding court for the Western District of Washington, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL PLACE FOR HOLDING COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT 
              OF WASHINGTON.

    Section 128(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``Mount Vernon,'' after ``Tacoma,''.
                                 <all>
```
PLIVA INC., petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.

No. 16-1513.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District denied.
# C_2011046EN.01001202.xml

| 12.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Gruppo Lepetit (RESVEROL)

(Case T-363/09) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark RESVEROL - Earlier international word mark LESTEROL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 46/23

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (Nassau, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Gruppo Lepetit SpA (Lainate, Italy)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2009 (Case R 1204/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Gruppo Lepetit SpA and Longevity Health Products, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc., to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc., to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
Wayne VOLK, et ux., petitioners, v. A.P. FRANZ, Jr., et al.

No. 17-1044.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 2, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
In re Anitra CRAWFORD, petitioner.

No. 16-5556.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Ivan VALDEZ PEREZ, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 17-8513.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Robert John ZUKOWSKI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8488.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# C_2011311EN.01001402.xml

| 22.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/14

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2011 — adp Gauselmann GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-532/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Figurative mark Archer Maclean’s Mercury - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark Merkur)

2011/C 311/21

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, abogada)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2010 in Case T-106/09 adp Gauselmann v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘Merkur’ for goods in Classes 6, 9, 28, 35, 37, 41 and 42 against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 12 January 2009 in Case R 1266/2007-1 dismissing the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision, which rejected the opposition brought by the appellant against the registration of the figurative mark ‘Archer Maclean’s Mercury’ in respect of goods in Classes 9, 16 and 28 — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Likelihood of confusion — Criteria for assessment

adp Gauselmann

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | adp Gauselmann GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

adp Gauselmann GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.

1

---
Ivory Lee ROBINSON, III, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6927.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, James H. Tate, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Thermadyne Mfg. LLC (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September
30, 2002 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities 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.

Dated:  November 14, 2002

                                        /s/      James H. Tate
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        James H. Tate
                                        Senior Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer of the
                                        Company
**Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 February 2010 – PromoCell bioscience alive v OHIM (SupplementPack)**

**(Case T-113/09)**

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark SupplementPack – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 31, 37, 42, 48)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2009 (Case R 996/2008‐4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SupplementPack as a Community trade mark. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH Biomedizinische Produkte |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark SupplementPack for goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 5, 41 and 42 – Application No 5433883 |
| Decision of the Examiner: | Application dismissed |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH Biomedizinische Produkte to pay the costs. |
Johnny FREEMAN, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5049.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6327

RUFUS W. GOODMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

A. D. MATHEWS, SR., Sheriff; COUNTY OF

HENRICO, VIRGINIA; MICHEL MARQUEZ,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CA-97-296-2)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rufus W. Goodman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint and denying his

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Goodman v.

Mathews, No. CA-97-296-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 1998). We deny Appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel. 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
Exhibit 10.4


 








 



Promissory Note


 








 


With this note, a total of NTD 300
million


 





shall be paid unconditionally to or his/her designated person
on (Date)







 


	And the related covenants are as follows:	 	Drawer:
	 	 	 	 
	1.	This promissory note authorizes Taishin Bank to fill the maturity date, and exempts it from the obligations
of issuing a Certificate of Protest and the notification obligation set out under Article 89 of the Law of Negotiable Instruments	 	Address:
	 	 	 	 
	2.	The interest rate of this promissory note shall be calculated as follows from the issuing date of this
note:	 	Drawer:









	 	 ☐	The basic lending rate of Taishin Bank and the additional annual percentage rate of Interests are counted
flexibly. 

(If there are any changes or adjustments in the above-mentioned basic lending rate or the additional rate, the
interests shall be counted based on the changed or adjusted rate.)	 	Address:
	 	 ☐	Others:	 	Drawer:
	 	 	If the payment for the principal and interests mentioned above is delayed, for those delayed part with
the overdue time less than six months, liquidated damages shall also be paid with, at 10% of the previously agreed interest rate;
for those delayed part with the overdue time more than six months, the liquidated damages shall be paid with, at 20% of the previously
agreed interest rate.	 	Address:
	 	 	 	 	Drawer:
	3.	Place of payment:	 	Address:






 





Date: June 19, 2018




 





	Endorsee	 
	Endorser	 
	Endorser’s adress	 
	Endorsement date	 
	Note:	 



 





The endorser agrees that this promissory note authorizes Taishin
Bank to fill the maturity date and exempts it from the obligations of issuing a Certificate of Protest and the notification obligation
set out under Article 89 of the Law of Negotiable Instruments




 


 


 






    	 	1
Ronald BASS, Sr., petitioner v. NEW JERSEY, et al.

No. 17-6784.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3980 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require the impaneling of a 

new jury if a jury fails to recommend by unanimous vote a sentence 

for conviction of a crime punishable by death. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2019 

Mr. KELLER (for himself, Mr. BOST, and Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

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

impaneling of a new jury if a jury fails to recommend 

by unanimous vote a sentence for conviction of a crime 

punishable by death. 

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 ‘‘Eric’s Law’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3980 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO IMPANEL A NEW JURY IN CER2 TAIN CASES. 

3 (a) ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR IMPANELING JURY.— 

4 Section 3593(b)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph 

7 (C); and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(E) a new special hearing is required pur10 suant to subsection (g); or’’. 

11 (b) IMPANELING OF NEW JURY WHEN JURY DOES

12 NOT REACH A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION.—Section 

13 3593 of such title is amended by adding at the end the 

14 following: 

15 ‘‘(g) SPECIAL RULE WHEN JURY DOES NOT RE16 TURN A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION.— 

17 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If a jury described in sub18 section (b)(1) or subparagraphs (A) through (D) of 

19 subsection (b)(2) does not, by unanimous vote, make 

20 a recommendation whether the defendant should be 

21 sentenced to death, to life imprisonment without 

22 possibility of release, or some other lesser sentence 

23 pursuant to subsection (e), the court, upon motion 

24 of the attorney for the government, shall order a 

25 new special hearing and impanel a new jury pursu26 ant to subsection (b). 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3980 IH

1 ‘‘(2) IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE.—If the jury 

2 impaneled pursuant to paragraph (1) does not reach 

3 a unanimous recommendation as to sentence, the 

4 court shall impose a sentence other than death au5 thorized by law.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
                  from Rocky  Point  Pharmaceuticals,  Inc.  September  30, 2000
                  financial  statements  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
                  reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                    0000853465
<NAME>                   Rocky Point Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
<CURRENCY>               US



<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1.00

<CASH>                             0
<SECURITIES>                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   0
<PP&E>                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              350
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                           1,000
<OTHER-SE>                         (1,350)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       0
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   0
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   350
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (350)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (350)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (350)
<EPS-BASIC>                        (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.00)



</TABLE>