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

 

**Certification of Chief Financial OfficerRequired by Rule 13a-14(a) (17 CFR 240.13a-14(a))**

 

I,Terrence C. Kearney, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”);

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period coveredby this report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of Hospira as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.  Hospira’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Hospira andhave:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to Hospira, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of Hospira’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in Hospira’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during Hospira’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, Hospira’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.  Hospira’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to Hospira’s auditors and the audit and public policycommittee of Hospira’s board of directors:

 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect Hospira’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in Hospira’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  August 11, 2005 | /s/  Terrence C. Kearney                                                          |   |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   | Terrence  C. Kearney, Senior Vice President,  Finance and Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
James L. HAMILTON v. STATE of North Carolina.

No. 481P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2004.

James L. Hamilton, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Kenneth W. Honeycutt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th day of September 2004 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2004."
** EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, John R. Miller, certify that: 

     1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Beef Packing Company,LLC; 

     2. Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

     3. Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

     4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

     a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

     b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

     c)disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

     5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

     a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

     b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting. 

|                   |   |                                    |
|------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| By:                    |   | /s/ John R. Miller                      |
|  

 

  |   |                                    |
|                   |   | John R. Miller*Chief Executive Officer* |

Date: April4, 2008
[Cite as State v. Rivas , 2015-Ohio-55.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2014-04-088

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 1/12/2015 : ERIC GONZALEZ RIVAS, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2013-08-1291

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee John T. Willard, P.O. Box 35, Hamilton, Ohio 45012, for defendant-appellant

Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon a brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Eric Gonzalez Rivas, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1)Butler CA2014-04-088 indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal,"

Anders at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) req uests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., PIPER and M. POWELL, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Alan Campbell, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 (the Quarterly Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) for the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of
Section 906.



Dated: October 28, 2005



/s/ Alan CampbellAlan Campbell Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
1. Home
2. Facts
3. Was Moby Dick a real whale?

**Was Moby Dick a real whale?**  Although Moby Dick was not a real whale, **real-life events** inspired the classic novel. Illustrations from Moby-Dick, published in 1851 and authored by Herman Melville.*Illustrations from "Moby-Dick", published in 1851 and authored by Herman Melville.*  Did you know? *In 2011, maritime heritage archaeologists working with NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries found the wreckage of *Two Brothers* located nearly six hundred miles northwest of Honolulu.*
 "Moby-Dick; or, The Whale", the allegorical novel about Captain Ahab’s search to kill a great white whale, was based on real-life events. Born in 1819, author Herman Melville grew up during the peak of American dominance of the whaling industry, roughly the period between 1820 and the start of the Civil War. Weaving contemporary accounts and his own experiences as a whaler, Melville created his American masterpiece. The young Melville was famously inspired by the story of George Pollard, the former captain of the whaler *Essex*. While on a two-year whaling expedition crisscrossing the Pacific, the *Essex* was rammed by a sperm whale. Quickly abandoning ship and thousands of miles from land, Pollard and his crew escaped in leaky lifeboats to begin a horrific ordeal resulting in sickness, starvation, and cannibalism. One of the few to survive, Pollard was given a second chance at captaining another whaler, the *Two Brothers.* But after 18 months in the Pacific, Pollard ran the *Two Brothers* aground, sinking the ship in what is now the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. The name of the whale  was also inspired by real-life events. In 1839, Melville read a story in a  magazine about an albino sperm whale famed for its deadly attacks on whaling  ships trying to hunt it down. This whale, killed off the coast of Chile near Mocha Island, was called Mocha Dick.
  More **Information** National Marine Sanctuaries Maritime Heritage Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument   Get **Social** Social
  **Last updated:** 10/19/23 **Author:** NOAA How to cite this article Contact Us


Feedback Provide Feedback
							Contact Us
							Report an error
 Social Instagram Logo/a>


*Science. Service.Stewardship.*
 About NOS About Us
							NOS Program Offices
							Media Inquiries
							Website Acknowledgements
                            Site Index
							Disclaimer
 More Resources Freedom of Information Act
							Accessibility
							Information Quality
							Privacy Policy
							NOS For Employees
							USA.gov
 Department of Commerce
									National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
									National Ocean Service
MARK PRESTON BOHNER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1808

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 16, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joanna A. Mauer, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charles R. McCoy, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

BILBREY, J.

This case is before us on direct appeal in an Involuntary Civil Commitment 

of Sexually Violent Predators Act case (the Jimmy Ryce Act), sections 394.910-

931, Florida Statutes, with Mark Preston Bohner, the appellant/committee alleging 
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. No other claim of error is asserted in the 

appeal.

In Manning v. State, 913 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), we held that claims 

of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in Jimmy Ryce Act cases cannot be raised 

on direct appeal, except in “the rare case where counsel’s ineffectiveness can be 

discerned from the face of the record ...” Although Jimmy Ryce Act cases are civil 

in nature, this same prohibition against raising ineffectiveness of counsel claims on 

direct appeal -- except where the ineffectiveness is apparent on the face of the 

record -- applies in criminal cases. Gore v. State, 784 So. 2d 418, 437-8 (Fla. 

2001).

Subsequent to our decision in Manning and subsequent to Judge Altenbernd 

pointing out in Ivey v. Department of Children and Family Services, 974 So. 2d 

480 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), the need for a rule of procedure to address the 

appropriate mechanism to bring an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim in a 

Jimmy Ryce Act case, the Florida Supreme Court adopted rule 4.460, Florida 

Rules of Civil Procedure for Involuntary Commitment of Sexually Violent 

Predators. The rule provides that ineffectiveness of trial counsel may be asserted 

by filing a habeas corpus petition.

The State asks us to hold that rule 4.460, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 

for Involuntary Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators, now provides the sole 

2
mechanism to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim in a Jimmy Ryce 

Act case. We find it unnecessary to decide that issue. The appellant has not 

shown trial counsel to be ineffective from the face of the record in this direct 

appeal and no claim for extraordinary relief is before the Court. Accordingly, we 

DISMISS the appeal. 

RAY and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

DANIEL NAVARRO

- CHAVEZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 50133

D.C. No. 3:11

- cr

- 00741

- LAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018 **

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Navarro

- Chavez appeals from the district court’s judgment granting,

in part, h is motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence on a drug

related conviction . We agree with the government that Navarro

- Chavez failed to

file his notice of appeal within the requisite time limit. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 15 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 50133

Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. See United States v. Sadler , 480

F.3d 932, 942 (9th Cir. 2007).

DISMISSED.
# Official Journal C 274/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 274 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 616 August 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 274

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 616 August 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 274/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8959 — Sonatrach/Augusta Refinery Assets) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 274/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8959 — Sonatrach/Augusta Refinery Assets) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 274/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 274/02

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 274/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8978 — AMF/KLP/Stena Sphere/Stena Renewable) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2018/C 274/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9053 — Sumitomo/Tierra/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| 2018/C 274/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9058 — Sonae/Sonae Sierra) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2018/C 274/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8978 — AMF/KLP/Stena Sphere/Stena Renewable) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

2018/C 274/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9053 — Sumitomo/Tierra/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

2018/C 274/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9058 — Sonae/Sonae Sierra) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
HomeEducationNOAA Planet StewardsNOAA Planet Stewards Webinar Videos

# Bringing Wetland to Market

The “Bringing Wetlands to Market” research study in the towns of Falmouth and Mashpee on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, examined the relationship between salt marshes, climate change, nitrogen pollution, and the economic value of salt marshes as carbon sinks. James Rassman, a project team member, will give a brief rundown on “blue carbon” as well as the science and methods used to track greenhouse gases in a saltmarsh. Joan Muller introduces a STEM high school curriculum module, linked to the Next Generation Science Standards, which provides teaching ideas and activities for sharing it with teachers and students.           (Link to curriculum) 

James Rassman is the Stewardship Coordinator at the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Falmouth and Mashpee Massachusetts.  Mr.  Rassman works on long term monitoring and research in and around Waquoit Bay, coastal, riparian, and upland restoration, and land management and acquisition projects. He has a particular interest in the management and ecology of coastal pine barrens and grasslands and lives on the Cape in Centerville, MA.

----

Joan Muller is the Education Coordinator at Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. She was the Principle Investigator on the project to create a curriculum based on the “Bringing Wetlands to Market” research. Joan is committed to action on slowing climate change both at work by starting the Reserve’s Green Team, and by making her own home a sustainable renovation project.

###### **Education**

Upcoming EventsThe Watch: Newsletter ArchivesWebinar ArchivesBook Club ArchivesEducation Resources

###### **Stewardship**

Supporting Stewardship Past ProjectsFocus Area ResourcesApplying for Funding

*Subscribe to the NOAA Planet Stewards Mailing List.* View our archive of past newsletters. 

Your E-mail Address:

###### **Search** Education

###### Get **Social**

**Last updated:**   10/28/21**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
STATE v. Caudy ANTOINE.

No. 482P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2004.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*674The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of September 2004 by Defendant for Relief:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of October 2004."
Lutze HAHNE v. John F. HANZEL. Willie M. Easterwood and Raymond Monroe v. Daniel Bauguess; Invincashield, Inc.; and John F. Hanzel.

No. 9P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 24, 2004.

Douglas Vreeland, Allan R. Gitter, Winston-Salem, for Hahne, Easterwood, and Monroe.

E. Fitzgerald Parnell, III, Rebecca B. Wofford, Charlotte, for Hanzel.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 6th day of January 2004 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> 
*47
"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of June 2004."