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

I, Thomas R. Coughlin,  Jr.,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Principal  Financial
Officer of Centrex, Inc., certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Centrex, Inc.;

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.   I am 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 my supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 my conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the 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.

5.   I have disclosed, based on my 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 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:    March 30, 2004


                           /s/ Thomas R. Coughlin, Jr.
                           ---------------------------
                           Thomas R. Coughlin, Jr.
                           Chief Executive Officer and
                           Principal Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ R.H. Dillon

Print Name: R.H. DillonTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDate: May 9, 2007/S/ James F. Laird

Print Name: James F. LairdTitle: Chief Financial OfficerDate: May 9, 2007
 24
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6863** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. RAUL CASTILLO RAMOS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt
. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. ( 8:04

- cr - 00293

- PJM

- 1; 8:14

- cv - 01510

- PJM )

Submitted : November 14, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Raul Castillo Ramos, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ronald Baldwin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland; James Marton Trusty, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are n ot binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Raul Castillo Ramos seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Ramos has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the fa cts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Perry V. MOSS, petitioner, v. WORKER'S COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, et al.

No. 18-5282.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three denied.
EX-4.4



 Exhibit 4.4 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO 

AMENDED AND RESTATED 

ORAGENICS, INC. 
 2012
EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This First Amendment to the Amended and Restated 2012 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is made
pursuant to Section 12 of the Plan. 
 Recitals: 

WHEREAS, the Plan was originally adopted by the Company on August 6, 2012 and approved by the shareholders on October 23,
2012; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors believes it would be in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders to
increase the authorized shares available under the Plan. 
 NOW THEREFORE, Section 4 titled “SHARES SUBJECT TO PLAN”
is hereby amended as follows: 
 The reference to “750,000” is replaced with “2,250,000”, to reflect an increase in the
shares reserved for use under the Plan. 
 All other terms and conditions of the Plan not otherwise modified hereby shall remain in full
force and effect. The Amendment was approved by the Board of Directors on April 19, 2018 and submitted to the Company’s shareholders for approval in connection with the Company’s June 22, 2018 Annual Meeting.
```
  
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 07/26/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      178,008
COMMITMENTS
  53,213   12,600   33,584   70,363  105,395  157,160  151,580   20,847   26,428

CHANGES FROM 07/19/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      3,688)
   2,877   -1,051    2,298   -2,462    2,388    2,713    3,635      975       54

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    29.9      7.1     18.9     39.5     59.2     88.3     85.2     11.7     14.8

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      177)
      47       35       58       61       74      137      144
```

----

Updated July 29, 2011
1The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3579

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri. 

Gerald D. Scurlock, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 7, 1999

 Filed: April 13, 1999

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gerald D. Scurlock pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 sentenced Mr. Scurlock to

27 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. On appeal, counsel filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district

court imposed too harsh a sentence. We note Mr. Scurlock’s sentence falls at the

bottom of the Guidelines range to which the parties stipulated in their plea agreement,
-2-

see United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who

explicitly and voluntarily exposes self to specific sentence may not challenge his

sentence on appeal), and in any event, the argument lacks merit, see Neal v.

Grammer, 975 F.2d 463, 465 (8th Cir. 1992). 

In accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have reviewed

the record for any nonfrivolous issues and have found none.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Robert Alan RIES, petitioner, v. OREGON.

No. 18-1247.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Oregon denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certifications**
I, Bert W. Hogue, Chief Financial Officer of Epoch Biosciences, Inc. (the“Company”), certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]
c)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.        Date: May 10, 2004 By:  /s/ Bert W. Hogue    Bert W. Hogue    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### EAST MICHIGAN CARE CORPORATION, MARLIN MANOR DIVISION, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Care Corporation, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 79-1722.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

July 21, 1981.

Carl E. Ver Beek, Daniel M. Blanford, Varnum, Riddering, Wierango & Christen-son, Grand Rapids, Mich., for petitioner.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Bernard Gottfried, Director, Region 7, N. L. R. B., Detroit, Mich., M. McLean, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, and WEICK and KEITH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the petition to review an order dated November 14, 1979 of the National Labor Relations Board case # 7-CA-16403, and further considering the respondent’s cross-application to enforce this order,

And further considering the record of the Board, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, the Court finds that the findings and order of the Board are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and, accordingly,

It is ORDERED that the cross-petition of the Board for enforcement is hereby granted and the order of the Board is hereby enforced.
Anthony PAPPAS, petitioner, v. Joseph LORINTZ, Individually and as Supreme Court Judge of New York, et al.

No. 18-1212.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

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

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no park in the consideration or decision of this petition.
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 Annual Report of Bio Matrix Scientific Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David R. Koos, Acting Chief Financial Officer (principal Accounting Officer) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.











/s/ David R. Koos


David R. Koos


Acting Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Accounting Officer)


Date: July 12, 2010
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


March 7, 2019


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 419 (the “Fund”)


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the Fund, consisting of the unit investment trust (the “Trust”) included in
the Registration Statement relating to the Fund. We enclosed a list of the securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date
hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such securities as of close of business on March 6, 2019, in accordance
with the valuation method set forth in the applicable Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to
the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations of the Trust securities in the Registration
Statement (No. 333-229192) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the
Units of the Trust and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO_________________


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
II

Calendar No. 60

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 158

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 24, 1999

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and

Public Works

MARCH 17, 1999

Reported by Mr. CHAFEE, without amendment

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located at 316

North 26th Street in Billings, Montana, as the ‘‘James

F. Battin United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States courthouse located at 316 North

5 26th Street in Billings, Montana, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘James F. Battin United States Court7 house’’.
2

HR 158 RS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

4 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

5 to be a reference to the ‘‘James F. Battin United States

6 Courthouse’’.

Passed the House of Representatives February 23,

1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 60

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 158

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located

house’’.as the ‘‘James F. Battin United States Courtat 316 North 26th Street in Billings, Montana,

MARCH 17, 1999

Reported without amendment
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2
                            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 Annual Report of Delta Galil Industries Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies that to the best of my knowledge:

        1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        2.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: June 27, 2005


                   /s/ Yossi Hajaj
                   ------------------
                   Name:  Yossi Hajaj
                   Title: Chief Financial Officer
Dennis MOORE, petitioner, v. Susan Tsui GRUNDMANN, Chairman, Merit Systems Protection Board, et al.

No. 17-5611.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1582

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 27, 1999

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.50 triethyleneglycol

bis(2-ethyl

hexanoate) (CAS

No. 94–28–0)

(provided for in

subheading

2915.90.50) ....... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2002 ’’.
2

•HR 1582 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section applies with respect to goods entered, or with3 drawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the

4 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Joanna Joy BLAUCH, petitioner, v. COLORADO.

No. 18-798.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Elias Omar SANTAMARIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9370.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6741** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TREVOR REED , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 5:11

- cr - 00353

- M

- 1; 5 :14

- cv - 00502

- M )

Submitted : August 18 , 2016 Decided: August 23, 2016

Before WILKINSON , KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Trevor Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions a re not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Trevor Reed seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the dismissal of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion as successive and the
court’s or der denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider that judgment . The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not is sue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S . 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a de batable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reed has n ot made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala bility and dismiss the a ppeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are3 adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED