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


                    CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                    ----------------------------------------


I, Robert C. Cantwell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of B&G Foods, 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. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 officers 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:  November 12, 2004


/s/ Robert C. Cantwell
-----------------------
Robert C. Cantwell
Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Derrick Kornegay, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[801 NYS2d 845]

Mercure, J.P.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

As a result of a mail watch on a fellow inmate, Stacey Knight, correction officials intercepted a letter sent by petitioner to Knight via a third party. In that letter, petitioner offered Knight money in exchange for his arranging to have an inmate at another correctional facility seriously injured. After a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of engaging in violent conduct, making threats and violating facility correspondence procedures. Petitioner subsequently commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging that determination.

The determination of guilt is supported by substantial evidence, including the misbehavior report, the testimony of the correction officer who authored the report, the intercepted correspondence, and a sample of petitioner’s handwriting *(see Matter of Alvarez v*Goord, 17 AD3d 945, 946 [2005]; *Matter of Knight v McGinnis,*14 AD3d 984, 984 [2005]; *Matter of Dagnone v Goord,*297 AD2d 869, 869 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 503 [2002]). We disagree with petitioner’s contention that the misbehavior report was deficient because it failed to specify the date and time that petitioner committed the alleged conduct. The misbehavior report reflects the date upon which the investigation into petitioner’s involvement in the alleged scheme was complete and, moreover, the report provided adequate detail *1237to apprise petitioner of the charges and afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense *(see Matter of Jackson v Portuondo,*288 AD2d 733, 733 [2001]; *Matter of Millan v Goord,*284 AD2d 827, 827 [2001]).

Nor are we persuaded by petitioner’s argument that the interception of the letter was unauthorized. Initially, we note that petitioner lacks standing to challenge the interception of another inmate’s incoming mail *(see Matter of Alvarez v Goord, supra*at 946). Furthermore, the confidential testimony, which we have reviewed in camera, establishes that the mail watch was authorized *(see Matter of Knight v McGinnis,*10 AD3d 754, 755 [2004]).

Petitioner’s allegation that the Hearing Officer was not impartial is belied by the record, which reflects that the hearing was in all respects conducted fairly and that the determination was based solely upon substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see Matter of Dagnone v Goord, supra*at 869). Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been considered and found to be without merit.

Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Nicholas W. Baxter, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Gerald R. Tuskey, Chief Financial Officer, of Eurasia Energy Limited, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Eurasia Energy Limited for the period ended March 31, 2006 (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 Eurasia Energy Limited.









Dated May 11, 2006

/s/Nicholas W. Baxter

Nicholas W. Baxter,

President and Chief Executive Officer





/s/Gerald R. Tuskey

Gerald R. Tuskey,

Chief Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P
- 7 6 , 7 1 8

E X P A R T E P A U L R A Y D E S I L E T S , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . 0 8
- 1 2
- 1 1 2 6 2
- C R I N T H E 3 5 9 t h D I S T R I C T C O U R T

F R O M M O N T G O M E R Y C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y o u n g , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two co u n t s o f intox ication assault and sentenc ed to five y ear s’ and six y ear s’ impris o n m ent, respe ctively

. The Nint h C o u rt o f Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Desilets v. State , No. 09-09-00375- CR (Tex. App.–B eaumont, deliver ed Oc tober 6, 2010). Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rende red ineff e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e b e c a u s e counsel failed to timely

notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of2

his right to petition for discr etionary revie w pro se. Appellate counsel filed an aff idavit with the trial court. Ba sed on that aff idavit, the trial court has enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely advise him of his rig ht to petition for discretionar y revie w pro se. The trial court rec o m m en d s t h at relief be
g rante d beca

use of a “bre akdown in the sy stem” and that an y er ro r wa s wi thout fault to counsel.
Howeve r, counsel states in his aff idavit that he “neg lected to inform Mr. Desilets afte r [t he appea l]

was aff irmed that he had thirty day s to f ile a petition f

or discretionar

y revie w.” The rec ord ref lects that Applicant is entitled to relief , but not due to any brea

kdown in the sy stem. Ex parte W ilson , 956 S.W .2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity
to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar y revie w of the judgme nt of the Ninth Court of Appea ls in Cause No. 09-09-00375- CR that aff irmed his conviction in Case No. 08-12-11262- CR from the 359th J udicial District Court of Montgome ry County

. Applicant shall file h i s p etition for discretionar

y revie w with this Court within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Deliver ed: Fe bruar

y 1, 2012 Do not publish
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION**     Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the UnitedStates Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Steven M. Van Dick, in his capacity as Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of Hansen Medical, Inc., hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: (i) the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2007 to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and  (ii) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Hansen Medical,Inc. as of, and for, the periods covered by the Report.August 14, 2007           /s/ Steven M. Van Dick             **Vice President and Chief Financial Officer**      **(Principal Financial andAccounting Officer)**       This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q to which it relates, is notdeemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of Hansen Medical, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theExchange Act (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.
NO. 07-04-0052-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	MAY 18, 2004

	______________________________

	LUCIO ROMAN CARRASCO, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 46,805-C; HONORABLE PATRICK A. PIRTLE, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant Lucio Roman Carrasco appeals a conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.  We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

	Appellant pled guilty to the charge of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.  Sentence was imposed on December 1, 2003.  He did not file a motion for new trial.  Notice of appeal was filed on February 6, 2004.  

LAW

	In a criminal case, appeal is perfected by timely filing a notice of appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b).  The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order, unless a timely motion for new trial is filed. TRAP  26.2(a).  The time for filing a notice of appeal may be extended for 15 days under certain circumstances. TRAP 26.3.  If the time for filing a notice of appeal is to be extended, both a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time which complies with TRAP 10.5(b) must be filed within the 15 day period.  TRAP 26.3;  Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523-25 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).  

	An untimely-filed notice of appeal will not invoke the jurisdiction of the court of appeals.  See State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.2d 408, 411 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000).  Thus, if an appeal is not timely perfected, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal, and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal.  Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523-25.

	ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

	Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.  A motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal was not filed.  Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal.  Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523.  

	The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  Tex. R. App. P. 39.8, 40.2, 43.2. 

								Phil Johnson

								Chief Justice

Do not publish.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the
Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, JOHN J. HANNAN, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best
of my knowledge, that:

(1) 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 Registrant.



/s/ John J. HannanName: John J. HannanDate: August 7, 2006
Jeffrey Scott BARBOUR v. STATE of North Carolina.

No. 417P03-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Jeffrey Scott Barbour, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Michael Parker, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Respondent on the 3rd day of January 2006 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Richmond County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 41374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14749]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95202; File No. SR-MEMX-2022-13]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of 
a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Adopt Connectivity 
Fees

July 6, 2022.
    On May 6, 2022, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'') filed with the Securities and 
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of 
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a 
proposed rule change to amend its Fee Schedule to adopt Connectivity 
Fees. The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing 
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The 
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register 
on May 20, 2022.\4\ On July 1, 2022, MEMX withdrew the proposed rule 
change (SR-MEMX-2022-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take 
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the 
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge 
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether 
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.'' 
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94924 (May 16, 
2022), 87 FR 31026
    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14749 Filed 7-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### Roberta L. Koeppel et al., Appellants, v Carlandia Corporation et al., Respondents.

[800 NYS2d 607]

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dillon, J.), entered December 12, 2003, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), and (2) a judgment of the same court entered December 24, 2003, which, upon the order, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of a judgment in the action *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

We agree with the Supreme Court that this action is barred by the six-year statute of limitations applicable to an action to foreclose a mortgage *(see*CPLR 213 [4]). The six-year statute of limitations began to run upon the acceleration of the mortgage debt *(see Notarnicola v Lafayette Farms,*288 AD2d 198 [2001]; *EMC Mtge. Corp. v Patella,*279 AD2d 604 [2001]; *Loiacono v Goldberg,*240 AD2d 476, 477 [1997]; *see also Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Mebane,*208 AD2d 892 [1994]; *Thompson v Willson,*183 Misc 949, 952 [1944], *affd*269 App Div 829 [1945]), and expired before the commencement of this action on May 21, 2003.

*885The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.
STATE v. MARTIN.

No. COA05-579.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from Guilford (03CRS98188, 03CRS98189)

Case without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. FINCHER.

No. COA05-642.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Buncombe (03CRS65156).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.
# L_2017068EN.01000401.xml

| 14.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 68/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/4

---

Corrigendum to the definitive adoption (EU, Euratom) 2017/303 of Amending budget No 4 of the European Union for the financial year 2016

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 52 of 28 February 2017
  )

On pages 2 to 115, in the titles and tables header:

for:

‘2017’,

read:

‘2016’.

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MIKE’S TRAIN HOUSE, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BROADWAY LIMITED IMPORTS, LLC AND

ROBERT GRUBBA,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2012-1311

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Maryland in No. 09-CV-2657, Judge James K. 

Bredar.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

BRIAN E. FERGUSON, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, of 

Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

J. WILEY HORTON, Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell 

& Dunbar, P.A., of Tallahassee, Florida, argued for defendants-appellees. Of counsel was ADRIENNE C. LOVE. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (DYK, MAYER, and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 8, 2013 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4968 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4968

             To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
                      Tetraacetylethylenediamine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2008

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 
                      Tetraacetylethylenediamine.

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

SECTION 1. TETRAACETYLETHYLENEDIAMINE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.29.70 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Tetraacetylethylenediamine) 
is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2017186EN.01001701.xml

| 19.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 186/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 186/17

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/975 of 8 June 2017 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 146 of 9 June 2017
  )

On page 145, concluding formula:

for:

‘Done at Brussels, 8 June 2017.

For the Council

The President

L. GRECH
  ’,

read:

‘Done at Luxembourg, 8 June 2017.

For the Council

The President

K. SIMSON
  ’.

---
STATE v. HAMPTON.

No. COA05-910.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from Catawba (05CRS1452, 05CRS1453)

Case without published opinion. Remanded.