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, Karen L. VanDerBosch, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of MakeMusic 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 thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin the annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperation and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15(d)-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’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 asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: March 15, 2007 By:  /s/ Karen L. VanDerBosch    Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Dwayne LEWIS

No. 141PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, for Lewis, Robert Dwayne

Milind Kumar Dongre, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Susan I. Doyle, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 16th of May 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 5th of December 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th of May 2018 by State of NC 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:

*808"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."

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).
In the MATTER OF John F. MARTIN, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001518

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

February 1, 2019

**566ORDER

Respondent has submitted a Motion to Resign in Lieu of Discipline pursuant to Rule 35, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. In light of Respondent's serious misconduct which demonstrates an unfitness to practice law, we grant the Motion to Resign in Lieu of Discipline. In accordance with the provisions of Rule 35, RLDE, Respondent "acknowledges that disciplinary counsel can prove" the allegations of misconduct. Moreover, Rule 35 provides Respondent's resignation shall be *permanent* , and he will never be eligible to apply, and will not be considered, for admission or reinstatement to the practice of law or for any limited practice of law in South Carolina.

Within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order, Respondent shall file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that he has complied with Rule 30, RLDE, and shall also surrender his Certificate of Admission to Practice Law to the Clerk of Court.

**567*/s/ Donald W. Beatty*, C.J.

*/s/ John W. Kittredge*, J.

*/s/ Kaye G. Hearn*, J.

*/s/ John Cannon Few*, J.

*/s/ George C. James, Jr.*, J.
----

(2004/C 84 E/0796)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3868/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) and Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject:   Netherlands Student Grants Act

In the Netherlands, grants are awarded to students aged over 18. That applies to all forms of education. Child benefit is not paid in respect of students aged over 18.

If the students concerned pursue their studies in Belgium or Germany, student grants are awarded in respect of higher education and university courses but not in respect of secondary, basic or intermediate vocational training courses.

The Netherlands authorities recognise periods of study in Belgium and Germany in connection with the Compulsory Education Act, and degrees taken in Germany and Belgium are recognised as full degrees.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               0
<PP&E>                                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     46,488
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                   4,300
<OTHER-SE>                                               142,088
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   0
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               0
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            135,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (135,163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (135,163)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (0.03)



</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

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

                                                                    Ending
Class            Interest             Principal    Losses           Balance
<S>               <C>                  <C>            <C>           <C>
A1               7401567.16       6716232.89                0        280021767.1
A2                307017.73                0                0           11823472
A3                136362.47                0                0            5202328
A4                911458.35                0                0           35000000
APO                       0          2126.68                0          381303.84
AR                   384.93              100                0                  0
B1                109292.71         18018.38                0         4185981.62
B2                113855.25         18770.57                0         4360729.43
B3                 22773.66          3754.54                0          872245.46
B4                 22773.66          3754.54                0          872245.46
B5                  9109.45          1501.82                0          348898.18
B6                 13664.73          2004.36           248.46          523367.97


</TABLE>
#### Donna O. WOLFSON v. Anthony MENARDO and Sal DeVito.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Submitted on Briefs April 25, 1990.

Decided April 27, 1990.

*391Jacob Apuzzo, Kennebunk, for plaintiff.

Sal DeVito, Kennebunk, pro se.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, HORNBY and COLLINS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Because the defendants failed to appear at trial in the District Court (Bidde-ford, *MacNichol, J.),*we agree with the Superior Court (York County, *Brodrick, J.)*that they cannot later argue that they were not the proper parties to the lawsuit. Nor can the defendants raise for the first time on appeal their arguments that the amount billed them was unfair, that they should have been allotted a setoff for late delivery or that they believed that the trial would be postponed. The defendants should have presented all those arguments to the District Court. *See Blanchette v. York Mut. Ins. Co.,*455 A.2d 426, 428 (Me.1983). Since this appeal is clearly frivolous, we award treble costs to the appellee under M.R.Civ.P. 76(f). *See Gurschick v. Clark,*511 A.2d 36 (Me.1986).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed. Treble costs shall be paid by appellants Anthony Menardo and Sal DeVito to appellee Donna 0. Wolf-son.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-38559) of RMI Titanium Company of our report dated
June 24, 1999, appearing on page 1 of the Annual Report of The RMI Titanium
Company Employee Savings and Investment Plan which appears as Exhibit 99.1 to
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of RTI International Metals, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 1998, as amended by this Form 10-K/A. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
33-38340) of RTI International Metals, Inc. of our report dated June 24, 1999,
appearing on page 1 of the Annual Report of The RMI Titanium Company Bargaining
Unit Employees Savings and Investment Plan which appears as Exhibit 99.2 to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of RMI Titanium Company for the year ended December
31, 1998, as amended by this Form 10-K/A.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Pittsburgh, PA
June 30, 1999
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.8



                              MKS INSTRUMENTS, INC.

                   INTERNATIONAL EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

                                 2001 AMENDMENT



     Whereas, the above titled plan (the "Plan") was adopted by the Board of
Directors (the "Board") of MKS Instruments, Inc. (the "Company") and

     Whereas, Section 17 of the Plan provides that the Board may at any time,
and from time to time, amend this Plan in any respect,

     Now therefore, the Plan is hereby amended, effective for the Plan Period
beginning June 1, 2001, as follows:

     Section 2(a) is amended by deleting the requirement that a person be
employed by the Subsidiary for "at least six (6) months prior to enrolling in
the Plan" and substituting a requirement that a person be employed for "at least
three (3) months prior to enrolling in the Plan."

     Now therefore, the Plan is hereby further amended, effective for the Plan
Period beginning June 1, 2001, as follows:

     The first paragraph of Section 9 is hereby deleted in its entirety and the
following paragraph is inserted in lieu thereof:

     "9. PURCHASE OF SHARES. On the Offering Commencement Date of each Plan
Period, the Company will grant to each eligible employee who is then a
participant in the Plan an option ("Option") to purchase on the last business
day of such Plan Period (the "Exercise Date"), at the Option Price hereinafter
provided for, the largest number of shares (fractional or whole) of Common Stock
of the Company as does not exceed the number of shares determined by multiplying
$2,083 by the number of full months in the Offering Period and dividing the
results by the closing price (as defined below) on the Offering Commencement
Date of such Plan Period."


                            Adopted by the Board of Directors on April 19, 2001.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ares Capital Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), R. Kipp deVeer, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Penni F. Roll, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 his or her knowledge:





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: April 26, 2022/s/ R. KIPP DEVEERR. Kipp deVeerChief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)Date: April 26, 2022/s/ PENNI F. ROLLPenni F. RollChief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Ares Capital Corporation and will be retained by Ares Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Larry Gordon WARE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMANDING GENERAL, FORT CAMPBELL, KENTUCKY, and Stanley E. Resor, Secretary of the Army, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 71-1817.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 6, 1972.

James S. Hyde, Jr., Chattanooga, Tenn., for appellant; Manly A. Watson, Chattanooga, Tenn., on brief.

J ames H. Barr, Louisville, Ky., for ap-pellees; George J. Long, U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., on brief.

Before WEICK, EDWARDS and PECK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking release from the United States Army. Appellant acknowledges that the District Court had found that the Local Board had a “basis in fact” for denying petitioner a continuation of his II-A classification. But appellant claims as reversible error the District Court’s failure to grant the petition on the ground that the Local Board did not give any reasons for its decision. In this regard appellant relies entirely upon this court’s recent opinion in United States v. O’Bryan, 450 F.2d 365 (6th Cir. 1971).

The holding in *O’Bryan,*which involved a claim to conscientious 'Objector status, was as follows:

> “Where it is clear that a *prima fa-cie*case was established, we conclude that *in conscientious objector cases,*it is essential to the validity of an order to report that the board state its basis of decision and the reasons therefor, . ” United States v. O’Bryan, *supra*at 371. (Emphasis added.)

*1037Appellant’s reliance upon *O’Bryan*for requiring Selective Service Boards to state their reasons in relation to noncon-scientious objector eases is misplaced.1

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

1

. Note, however, that the Selective Service System has published a notice of proposed rule making as follows :

> “§ *1623.4 Action to be taken when classification determined.*

> * * * * #

> (c) In the event that the local board classifies the registrant in a class other than that which he requested it shall record its reasons therefor in his file.

> The local board shall inform the registrant of such reasons in writing at the time it mails to him a notice of his classification.” 37 FED.REG. 480 (Jan. 12, 1972).
|  | (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 Company      as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the    Report. |
|--|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ Scott Miller             |   |
|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|   | Scott      Miller            |
|   | Chief      Executive Officer |
|   | May      20, 2009            |
|   |                         |
|   | /s/ Faith Forbis             |   |
|   | Faith      Forbis            |
|   | Chief      Financial Officer |
|   | May      20, 2009            |

----
STATE v. Montrez Benjamin WILLIAMS

233P12-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 7, 2019

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Williams, Montrez Benjamin

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of February 2019 *653by Defendant to Remove from Electronic Site:

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of February 2019."
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IN RE: C. DOUGLASS THOMAS,

Appellant

______________________

2019-2053

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 11/253,299.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

C. DOUGLASS THOMAS, TI Law Group, PC, San Jose, 

CA, argued pro se. 

 NICHOLAS THEODORE MATICH, IV, Office of the Solicitor, 

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, 

VA, argued for appellee Andrei Iancu. Also represented by 

THOMAS W. KRAUSE, AMY J. NELSON.

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, SCHALL, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

Case: 19-2053 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 03/05/2020
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

March 5, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 19-2053 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 03/05/2020
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20764]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Polar Programs; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following 
meeting:
    Name: Advisory Committee for Polar Programs (1130).
    Date/Time: October 27, 2005, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. October 28, 2005, 8 
a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
1235.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Sue LaFratta, Office of Polar Programs (OPP), 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230 
(703) 292-8030.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To advise NSF on the impact of its policies, 
programs, and activities of the polar research community, to provide 
advice to the Director of OPP on issues related to long range planning.
    Agenda: Staff presentations on program updates; discussions on 
International Polar Year; discussions on icebreakers.
    Reason for Late Notice: Due to an oversight caused by the departure 
of a key member of the Office of Polar Programs.

    Dated: October 12, 2005.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-20764 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30788

Summary Calendar

__________________

MARY A. HARRISON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SHIRLEY S. CHATER,

Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-1074

- - - - - - - - - -

January 18, 1996

Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mary A. Harrison appeals the affirmance of the

Commissioner's denial of his application for Supplemental

Security Income (SSI) benefits. She argues that the Commissioner

erred in applying the listings regarding disability for obesity. 

As Harrison did not meet the height-weight requirements for the

listing, the Commissioner did not err. 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt.

P, app. 1 § 10.10 (A-E) (1993). Harrison also contends that the

Commissioner did not give adequate weight to the opinion of a 
No. 95-30788

-2-

treating physician. The Commissioner is free to reject the

opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary

conclusion. The substantial medical and other evidence supports

the Commissioner's conclusion that Harrison's impairments did not

significantly circumscribe her ability to do light work. 

AFFIRMED.