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, James L. Lemery, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005
of Southwest Community Bancorp; 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(s) 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; 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 (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(s) 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: May 12, 2005 /s/ James L. LemeryJames L. LemeryExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

            Section 1350 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gunther
Braun, Chief Financial 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 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:    December 13, 2004

                                              /s/  Gunther Braun
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                   Gunther Braun
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
STATE v. HARRIS.

No. COA04-1335.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 7, 2005.

Certification Date June 27, 2005.

Appeal from Cabarrus (03CRS18558, 03CRS18559, 03CRS18560, 03CRS18561, 03CRS18562, 03CRS18565, 03CRS18566)

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.5





ABBVIE 2013 INCENTIVE STOCK PROGRAM 
SECOND AMENDMENT


    
WHEREAS, AbbVie Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), sponsors the AbbVie 2013 Incentive Stock Program (the “Program”);
 
WHEREAS, Section 14(f) of the Program provides that the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company may amend the Program at any time, provided that the amendment does not materially and adversely modify any person’s rights under the express terms and conditions of an outstanding Benefit without such person’s written consent;
        
WHEREAS, the Company now desires to amend the Program to address the application of certain terms to substitute options granted in connection with a corporate transaction;


WHEREAS, neither the Program nor the NYSE Listed Company Manual requires stockholder approval of the proposed amendment;


WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Program;


WHEREAS, the proposed amendment does not impair the rights of any person with respect to an outstanding Benefit;


  NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the Program be and it hereby is amended, effective as of the date on which the Board approves the amendment, as follows:
 
1.    The following proviso is hereby added to the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 6(a) of the Program:


“..., unless such option is granted in connection with a corporate transaction in substitution for an option previously granted by an entity involved in such corporate transaction (any such option, a “Substitute Option”).”


2.    The following proviso is hereby added to the last sentence of the third paragraph of Section 6(a) of the Program:


“..., unless such option is a Substitute Option.”


3.    Except as specifically amended above, the Program will remain in full force and effect.
HomeOcean Facts

# Are mermaids real?

## No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found.

Statue of a sailor mermaid from Portsmouth, Virginia.  

Mermaids — those half-human, half-fish sirens of the sea — are legendary sea creatures chronicled  in maritime cultures since time immemorial. The ancient Greek epic poet Homer  wrote of them in *The Odyssey*. In the  ancient Far East, mermaids were the wives of powerful sea-dragons, and served  as trusted messengers between their spouses and the emperors on land. The aboriginal  people of Australia call mermaids *yawkyawks* – a name that may refer to their mesmerizing songs. 

The  belief in mermaids may have arisen at the very dawn of our species. Magical  female figures first appear in cave paintings in the late Paleolithic (Stone  Age) period some 30,000 years ago, when modern humans  gained dominion over the land and, presumably,  began to sail the seas. Half-human creatures, called chimeras, also abound in  mythology — in addition to mermaids, there were wise centaurs, wild satyrs, and  frightful minotaurs, to name but a few.

But  are mermaids real? No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found. Why,  then, do they occupy the collective unconscious of nearly all seafaring  peoples? That’s a question best left to historians, philosophers, and  anthropologists. 

###### **Search** Our Facts

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

###### More **Information**

          - Manatees 101: NOAA's Ocean Today video

**Last updated:**   01/20/23**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 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
BAKER v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

No. COA04-1055.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2017025DE.01003801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 31.1.2017 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 25/38 |

---

Berichtigung der Durchführungsverordnung (EU) 2016/459 der Kommission vom 18. März 2016 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1235/2008 mit Durchführungsvorschriften zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 834/2007 des Rates hinsichtlich der Regelung der Einfuhren von ökologischen/biologischen Erzeugnissen aus Drittländern

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 80 vom 31. März 2016](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2016_080_R_TOC)
)

Auf Seite 16, Anhang I Nummer 2 zur Änderung von Nummer 2 des Kanada betreffenden Eintrags in Anhang III der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1235/2008:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „2. | Ursprung: Erzeugnisse der Kategorien A, B und F, die in Kanada erzeugt wurden, und Erzeugnisse der Kategorien D und E, die in Kanada mit ökologischen/biologischen Zutaten, die in Kanada erzeugt wurden oder in Kanada im Einklang mit den kanadischen Rechtsvorschriften eingeführt wurden, erzeugt wurden.“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „2. | Ursprung: Erzeugnisse der Kategorien A, B und F, die in Kanada erzeugt wurden, und Erzeugnisse der Kategorien D und E, die in Kanada mit ökologischen/biologischen Zutaten, die in Kanada erzeugt wurden oder in Kanada im Einklang mit den kanadischen Rechtsvorschriften eingeführt wurden, verarbeitet wurden.“ |

---
52 Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

LOUISIANA

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

By Type

Service: 35%

Construction: 37%

Research and 

Development: 0%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 28%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions)

Textron $226.8 M

PCCP Constructors, JV $143.0 M

Hornbeck Offshore Services $101.7 M

Placid Refining Company $72.4 M

Boh Bros. Construction $66.4 M

Cubic $46.7 M

Weeks Marine $44.3 M

Renda/J Bros Joint Venture $39.4 M

AECOM $33.5 M

Swiftships Shipbuilders $33.0 M

$4.8

$5.5

$5.0

$2.6

$1.9 $2.1 $1.9

$3.0

62%

25%

3%

10%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$1.4 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

43,798

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

National Guard/

Reserve: 40%

Active Duty: 45%

Civilian: 15%

59%

17%

24%

0%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

Parish Total* Active Duty Civilians

Military

Vernon 12,286 10,518 1,649

Bossier 9,740 6,305 1,536

Orleans 9,559 1,408 1,804

Rapides 1,684 ND 442

East Baton Rouge 1,540 227 117

Iberville 866 51 42

Tangipahoa 698 ND 106

Plaquemines 697 ND 696

Jefferson Davis 558 558 ND

Calcasieu 517 ND 53
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 53

Jefferson Davis 

East Baton Rouge 

Bossier 

Tangipahoa

Iberville 

Vernon

Orleans 

Plaquemines 

Calcasieu 

West Baton Rouge 

Bossier 

St. Tammany

St. Mary

Vernon

Orleans 

Lafourche

Plaquemines 

Jefferson 

Vernon Parish

$493.9 M

Bossier Parish

$394.6 M

Orleans Parish 

$272.5 M

Plaquemines Parish

$37.3 M

Rapides Parish

$36.4 M

East Baton Rouge Parish

$23.9 M

Tangipahoa Parish

$10.8 M

Jefferson Davis Parish

$10.7 M

 Lafayette Parish

$8.8 M

 Iberville Parish

$8.7 M

(M=millions)

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Orleans Parish

$655.0 M

Vernon Parish

$247.8 M

Jefferson Parish

$209.9 M

St. Tammany Parish 

$160.4 M

Plaquemines Parish

$89.0 M

West Baton Rouge Parish

$83.8 M

Bossier Parish

$77.2 M

St. Mary Parish

$53.3 M

Calcasieu Parish

$52.4 M

Lafourche Parish

$50.0 M

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

#29

$3.3 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#31

1.4% OF STATE GDP

0.8%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$685

PER RESIDENT

#29

$1.9 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#24

43,798 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#25

$1.4 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 LOUISIANA

Rapides

Lafayette

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 8

- 00 192

- C R



### ____________________

RANDY BAUER

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________________ _______________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 253rd District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. CR32082

________________________________________ ________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court sentenced Randy Bauer on May 3, 2018. On June 22, 2018, the

trial court granted Bauer’s motion for new trial. On June 27, 2018, Bauer’s counsel

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the trial court granted Bauer’s motion

for new trial

. “ Granting a new trial restores the case to its p ositio n before the former

trial[.]” See Tex. R. App. P. 21.9(b). Because there is no final, appealable judgment

,

we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Waller v. State , 931 S.W.2d 640, 643

- 44

(Tex. App.

– Dallas 1996, no pet.). Because the trial court has granted a new trial, we2

suspend the requirement that the appellant personally sign the motion to dismiss. See

Tex. R. App. P. 2; see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). Accordingly, the appeal is

dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f)

.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

Submitted on J u l y 2 4

, 2 0 1 8

Opinion Delivered J u l y 2 5

, 2 0 1 8

Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
STATE v. ROBBINS

No. COA04-1039

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed July 19, 2005

Certification Date August 8, 2005

Appeal from Guilford (03CRS75173, 03CRS75174, 03CRS75175, 03CRS75176).

Case without published opinion. Vacated and remanded.
STATE v. CARTER.

No. COA04-1712.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. OLIVER

No. COA04-1697

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Carteret (03CRS54226, 03CRS6075).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
66 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by Territory, FY 2022

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions) 

Huntington Ingalls $1.6 B

ST Engineering $651.8 M

V2X $410.9 M

Raytheon Technologies $176.5 M

Taylor Defense Products, LLC $90.7 M

Olin Corp. $89.0 M

M1 Support Services $75.9 M

Hewlett-Packard $37.7 M

Tyonek Native Corp. $31.4 M

Seemann Composites, Inc. $30.2 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

MISSISSIPPI

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$1.7 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

34,747

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Harrison 7,554 2,331 903 2,006 12,794

Warren ND 2,659 143 245 ND

Lauderdale 793 627 1,258 226 2,904

Hinds 33 408 1,365 351 2,157

Lowndes 1,338 591 78 95 2,102

Rankin ND 325 1,572 ND ND

Hancock 473 1,306 52 ND ND

Forrest 307 402 429 218 1,356

Jackson 32 579 128 22 761

Lee ND 104 413 101 ND

Construction: 1% Research and

Development: 2%

Service: 23%

Supplies and

Equipment: 73% 

Active Duty: 31%

Civilian: 28%

National 

Guard: 30%

Reserve: 11%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

11%

72%

12%

5%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

41%

23%

35%

2%

$1.6

$2.6

$4.7

$5.4

$4.8

$5.6

$3.6 $3.9

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

#28 #10 1.0% $1,928 #25 #26 #23 #26

$5.7 B SPENT 

IN STATE

4.1% OF 

STATE GDP

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER 

RESIDENT

$3.9 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

34,747 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$1.7 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

$98.9 M GRANT 

SPENDING
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2022 67

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS

Winston

FISCAL YEAR 2018 MISSISSIPPI

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Jackson

Madison

Harrison

Warren

Scott

Lowndes

Lafayette

Winston

Hancock

Forrest

(M = millions)

$2.3 B

$394.2 M

$253.0 M

$198.9 M

$176.5 M

$100.8 M

$94.4 M

$90.7 M

$76.0 M

$48.8 M

Harrison

Warren

Hancock

Lowndes

Lauderdale

Hinds

Rankin

Forrest

Jackson

Lee

$613.5 M

$237.6 M

$159.8 M

$143.9 M

$131.5 M

$90.3 M

$67.3 M

$65.6 M

$58.1 M

$20.5 M

Lafayette

Madison

Warren

Warren

Lowndes

Scott

Lowndes

Lee

Forrest

Harrison

Hancock Jackson

Forrest

Jackson

Harrison

Hancock

Rankin

Hinds

Lauderdale
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 16, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41129 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DARREL LYNN COWAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:03-CR-865-1

-------------------- Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Darrel Lynn Cowan pleaded guilty to one count of importing marijuana into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960(a), (b). The district court sentenced him to 46 months in prison, and Cowan now appeals. Cowan concedes that his argument that the statutes under which he was convicted are unconstitutional because they treat drug quantity as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense is foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3dNo. 04-41129 -2- 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000). He raises it only to preserve it for further review. Cowan also contends that his sentence is unconstitutional in light of the rule announced in United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), because the district court imposed the sentence pursuant to the then-mandatory Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which Booker rendered advisory. We review for plain error. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). Imposition of a sentence under the former mandatory guideline regime constitutes error that is plain, i.e., obvious. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo , 411 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 2005). We reject Cowan’s argument that such error is structural or presumptively prejudicial with respect to whether the error affects substantial rights, and we employ the same analysis set forth in Mares
. See id. at 601. As there is no indication in the record that the district court would have given Cowan a lower sentence under an advisory system, Cowan cannot demonstrate that any error in the mandatory application of the Guidelines affected his substantial rights. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), the undersigned officer of Southwest Community Bancorp (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: August 12, 2004

                                            /s/ Frank J. Mercardante
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Frank J. Mercardante
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

      The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

                                       25
STATE of North Carolina v. Carl Edward LYONS.

No. 129P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

Carl E. Lyons, Pro Se.

*367William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of July 2004 by Defendant 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 12th day of August 2004."
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO TITLE 18,

UNITED STATES CODE,
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, D. Joseph Gersuk, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of ANGIODYNAMICS, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended August 31, 2012 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: October 10, 2012



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|/s/ D. Joseph Gersuk                       
|D. Joseph Gersuk, Executive Vice President,
|Chief Financial Officer