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

**Hill International, Inc.**

**Certification of Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer**

I, John Fanelli III, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hill International, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have: 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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 theeffectiveness 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 anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s 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 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 controlover reporting. 

 

Dated: August 6, 2009
Exhibit
      32.1





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 Now Auto Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
      undersigned, Scott Miller, Chief Executive Officer/ Financial Officer and Chief
      Operating Officer of the Company, certify in my capacities as officer of the
      Company, 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 our
      knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d)
                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial
                respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof
                the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in theReport.





By:
            /s/
                Scott MillerScott
                MillerChief
                Executive OfficerFebruary
                13, 2008/s/
                Faith ForbisFaith
                ForbisChief
                Financial OfficerFebruary
                13, 2008
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132151 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. LILLIAN KREBS, MARK KREBS, Stephen J. Markman, FRED KREBS and KREBSVIEW FARMS, Justices Plaintiffs,

v SC: 132151 COA: 258813 Ingham CC: 03-000807-CK WILLIAM and SALLY NYGREN, Defendants-Appellants,

and

SECURA INSURANCE, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 15, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

p1218 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 28, 2006

Clerk
EX-10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 
 2012 AMENDMENT TO 
 THE ENPIRION, INC. 

2004 STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 THIS 2012 AMENDMENT TO THE ENPIRION, INC. 2004 STOCK OPTION PLAN (this “Amendment”), dated as of August 8, 2012, is entered into by Enpirion, Inc., a company organized under the laws
of the State of Delaware (“Company”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company adopted the Enpirion, Inc. 2004 Stock Option Plan
(the “Plan”) to compensate the Company’s officers, employees, directors, consultants and other key persons with awards of stock options; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company intends to amend the Plan to increase the total number of shares of common stock of the Company that may be issued or transferred under the Plan by 7,500,000 shares, so that a total
of 37,786,264 shares may be issued or transferred under the Plan. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby agrees as follows:

 1.    Section 3 of the Plan shall be amended by replacing the term “30,286,264” therein with the term
“37,786,264”. 
 2.    In all respects not amended, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed. 

[Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as evidence of the adoption of this Amendment to the Plan as set
forth herein, the Board of Directors of the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by the undersigned officer of the Company as of the date set forth above. 

 

			
	ENPIRION, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Denis Regimbal
	Name: Denis Regimbal
	Title: Chief Executive Officer


 Option Plan Amendment
STATE of North Carolina v. Kenneth Wayne RYCKELEY, Defendant.

No. COA18-139

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: January 15, 2019

NO ERROR.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
 AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
 ACTION: Notice of issuance of permits for marine mammals.
 SUMMARY: The following permits were issued.
 ADDRESSES: Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax (703) 358-2281.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Division of Management Authority, telephone (703) 358-2104.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 
                    *et seq.*), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Marine Mammals Permit number
Applicant
Receipt of application 
                            **Federal Register**
                             notice
Permit issuance date102916
Larry D. Atkinson
70 FR 51838; August 31, 2005
September 20, 2005.( print page 59367)105483
John L. Pouleson
70 FR 41782; July 20, 2005
September 20, 2005.
 Dated: September 23, 2005. Michael L. Carpenter, Senior Permit Biologist,  Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.


[FR Doc. 05-20373 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Travis Ryan YOUNG, Defendant.

No. COA18-258

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 7, 2018

NO ERROR.
#### FRANKIE CHEEK BOYER v. GEORGE W. BOYER

No. 7521DC572

(Filed 5 November 1975)

Contempt of Court § 6— failure to make child support and house payment — sufficiency of findings

The trial court’s findings were sufficient tq support its conclusion that defendant was in contempt of a court order to make child support payments and to make payments on a home owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety.

Appeal by defendant from *Clifford, Judge.*Judgment entered 26 March 1975 in District Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 October 1975. ■

On 10 May 1974 an order , was entered requiring defendant, pending a- final hearing on a motion relating to custody of his minor son, to pay $50 per week for the support of .his minor daughter. The order also provided for plaintiff to have possession' of the home owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety .and “defendant should catch up any payments in arrears on saijd homeplace and should keep payments current on said home until the further orders of this Court.” Defendant did not appeal from the order.

On 26 March 1975, pursuant to a show cause order and a hearing, the court entered an order finding, among other things, that defendant was $1,240 delinquent in' making support' payments required by the previous order and that he was three months delinquent in making house payments in the amount of $129 each. The court adjudged defendant in contempt and ordered that he be imprisoned until such time as he should purge himself of contempt by paying the $1,240 and the three house payments. Defendant appealed.

*Wilson and Morrow, by Alvin A. Thomas and John F. Morrow, for plaintiff appellee.*

*Carol L. Teeter for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the facts found by the trial court are insufficient to support the order adjudging him in contempt. We find no merit in the contention. The court *423found, among other things, that defendant had sold a business that he was engaged in for $24,000, that he had received $10,000 of the money and that the balance of $14,000 was being paid to him at the rate of $1,000 per month. The court further found that defendant is an able-bodied man, able to be gainfully employed, and able to comply with the orders previously entered in this cause. We hold that the findings are sufficient to support the conclusion of law and adjudication that defendant is in contempt of court.

. Affirmed.

Judges Vaughn and Arnold concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4840 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4840

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 22 (legislative day, March 19), 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the ``Clarence D. 
                         Lumpkin Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CLARENCE D. LUMPKIN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Clarence 
D. Lumpkin Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 21, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
ALR                  318.36               50                0                  0
AP                        0         12155.07                0          157528.72
AR                     0.28               50                0                  0
BP                        0          7942.52                0          383835.49
IA1              5828064.58         13128327                0          205905673
IB1                60706.88          36476.2                0          2219523.8
IB2                39475.61         23719.24                0         1443280.77
IB3                24298.89         14600.18                0          888399.82
IB4                18217.44          10946.1                0          666053.91
IB5                15176.72          9119.05                0          554880.95
IB6                 9121.44          3435.43          2045.27          333491.79
IIA1              208139.15                0                0            8057000
IIA10            1091751.14       1592433.53                0        25146860.46
IIA11              105964.4          6150000                0                  0
IIA12              703668.7                0                0           25019332
IIA2                 365955                0                0           14166000
IIA3                 390625                0                0           15000000
IIA4              365520.85                0                0           14036000
IIA5              314801.25                0                0           11898000
IIA6                 260080                0                0            9753000
IIA7              147170.85                0                0            5434000
IIA8               151132.9                0                0                  0
IIA9             2525070.02        6142243.5                0        96995030.51
IIB1               87810.62         12171.48                0         3114828.53
IIB2              126478.73         17531.28                0         4486468.73
IIB3               35129.86          4869.37                0         1246130.63
IIB4               21061.07          2919.28                0          747080.72
IIB5               10558.61          1463.54                0          374536.47
IIB6                17568.8             2079           356.22          623202.48


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 11, 2015

No. 04-15-00214-CV

IN RE Juan Miguel MATA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

On September 10, 2015, real party in interest Maria Elena Mata n/k/a Maria Elena 

Frazier, filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to relator’s supplemental petition 

for writ of mandamus. The motion is GRANTED. Any response to the supplemental petition for 

writ of mandamus on behalf of the real party in interest should be filed in this court no later than 

October 15, 2015.

It is so ORDERED on September 11, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _______________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2714, styled In the Matter of Maria Elena Mata and Juan Miguel Mata, 

pending in the County Court, Dimmit County, Texas, the Honorable Amado Abascal presiding.
STATE of North Carolina v. Cedric Theodis HOBBS, Jr.

No. 263PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

John Keating Wiles, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Sterling P. Rozear, Assistant Appellate Defender, Cedric Theodis Hobbs, Jr., for Hobbs, Cedric Theodis (Jr.)

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 21st of August 2018 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the State of NC, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 21st of August 2018 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15 (g)(2).
#### Ronald J. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.

No. 2002-KP-00973-COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

June 24, 2003.

Ronald J. Robinson, Appellant, pro se.

Office of the Attorney General by Charles W. Maris, Attorney for Appellee.

Before LEE, P.J., MYERS and GRIFFIS, JJ.

MYERS, J., for the court.

¶ 1. Ronald Robinson pled guilty to the crime of aggravated assault in exchange for dropping several other charges. He was sentenced to serve fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. The judgment and sentence were entered on October 7,1999.

¶ 2. On April 30, 2002, Robinson filed a motion asking the trial court judge to reconsider his sentence. The trial judge denied the motion due to lack of jurisdiction. Robinson appealed the denial of his motion to reconsider his sentence. After review, we agree with the trial court and affirm.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

¶ 3. There are two ways in which a criminal may challenge a trial court proceeding: (1) a direct appeal, or (2) a proceeding under the Post-Conviction Relief Act. *Fleming v. State,*553 So.2d 505, 506 *158(Miss.1989). Robinson is not directly appealing his conviction, nor would a petition for post-conviction relief be applicable due to the nature of the relief Robinson seeks. Robinson is seeking a reduction of his sentence.

114. Robinson is incorrect in his assertion that a judge has authority to reduce a sentence even if a judge does not have power to vacate a sentence after the term expires. A reduction or reconsideration of a sentence by a judge must occur prior to the expiration of the sentencing term. *Harrigill v. State,*403 So.2d 867, 868-69 (Miss.1981). The power to reduce the sentence after the expiration of the term is vested in another branch of the government. The trial judge was correct to deny the request.

¶ 5. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER SENTENCE IS AFFIRMED. COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LAUDERDALE COUNTY.

McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE, IRVING, CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 22

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-75697, 333-40400, and 333-120514 of Pulitzer Inc. (the "Company") on Form
S-8 of our reports dated March 14, 2005, relating to the financial statements
and financial statement schedule of the Company and management's report of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (which reports
express unqualified opinions on the consolidated financial statements, financial
statement schedule, and management's assessment of the effectiveness of the
Company's internal control over financial reporting and an adverse opinion on
the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting
because of a material weakness; and which report on the consolidated financial
statements includes explanatory paragraphs referring to the entering of an
Agreement and Plan of Merger between the Company and Lee Enterprises,
Incorporated effective January 29, 2005 and the restatement of the consolidated
statements of cash flows for the years ended December 28, 2003 and December 29,
2002), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pulitzer Inc. for the
year ended December 26, 2004.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
March 16, 2005
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00200-CR

No. 02-19-00201-CR

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. C-432-W011268-1487220-AP, C-432-W011462-1487220-BP, C-432-

W011269-1487226-AP, C-432-W011466-1487226-BP

ORDER

Appellant Mohammad Rashid Salim’s brief was originally due July 10, 2019.

This court has granted one previous extension of time to file appellant’s brief. On

July 16, 2019, in granting “Appellant’s Motion to File Brief Out of Time,” we ordered

the brief due Monday, August 12, 2019, and we stated in our order that NO

FURTHER EXTENSIONS WOULD BE GRANTED

. Appellant has not filed a

brief.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Hon. Heather M. Lytle, counsel for

appellant, file an appellate brief with this court on behalf of appellant on or before

Monday, August 26, 2019

. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR



### E X PARTE 

### M OHAMMAD 

### R ASHID 

### S ALIM2

FILING APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED. Failure to timely

comply with this order will result in these cases being abated and remanded to the trial

court to conduct a hearing to determine whether the appellant desires to prosecute

the appeals, whether the appellant is indigent, or, if not indigent, whether retained

counsel has abandoned the appeals, and, if deemed appropriate, to make findings for

the purpose of aiding this court in determining whether to initiate contempt

proceedings against appellant’s counsel. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2)

– (4).

We direct the clerk of this court to send a copy of this order to appellant’s

counsel via certified mail return receipt requested and email, and to all other counsel

of record, and to the trial court judge.

Dated August 16, 2019

.

Per Curiam