alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Daniel T. Voelpel, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of First Franklin Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch 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 thesmall business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4 The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-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 and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the smallbusiness issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(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: November 13, 2006 /s/ Daniel T. Voelpel   Daniel T. Voelpel   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   
19
97th Congress, 24 SessIon - - - - House Document No. 97-208

VETO OF H.R. 6198

MESSAGE

FROM

T"E PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

VETOING

H.R. 6198, AN ACT TO AMEND THE MANUFACTURING CLAUSE

OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW

JuLY 12, 1982.---Ordered to be printed

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

89-011 0 WASHINGTON: 1982

97th Congress, 2d Session - - - House Document No. 97-208

To th House of Bep|resentative:s.

I am returning without my approval H.R. 6198, a bill that would

extend for four years the "manufacturing clause" of the U.S. copyright law that expired on June 30, 1982.

The manufacturing clause requires that many printed materials

be printed in the United States in order to enjoy copyright protection. The clause was written into law nearly a century ago, in an

effort to strengthen our relatively new printing industry by limiting

foreign competition. However the "infant industry" justification for

protecting our printing industry is no longer valid; our industry is

now one of the most modern and efficient in the world.

During the recent Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade 'Negotiations. our trading partners objected to the manufacturing clause as

inconsistent with our international obligations. Extensions of the

clause, as provided in H.R. 6198, could result in increased international trade tensions that could endanger American jobs. I would

further note that if the printing or publishing industry believes

itself injured, or threatened by injury, due to the expiration of the

manufacturing clause, it has the option of requesting relief under

the Trade Act.

Mv Administration has placed a very high priority on strengthening free trade, and we are energetically seeking to remove artificial

foreign barriers to American exports. We are confident that our free

enterprise system will enable American products to face foreign competition in our own open market and to do well in markets overseas,

provided our access to those markets is not blocked by protectionist

barriers that distort international competition.

Given-the importance of our efforts to remove foreign trade barriers, it would be self-defeating to extend an artificial barrier of our

own. For these reasons, I cannot approve H.R. 6198.

RoN.&rz REAGAN.

THE VHrr HorsE. July 8, 1982.

(1)
H. R. 6198

2Rinzoj-sMRuch Conuss of the idnited $tates of Zmtra AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington an Monday, the twenty.fifth day of Janu.ry,

one thousand nine hundred and eighty-two

To amend the mnanufturtng clatwm of the topyright lam.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amenca in Congress assembled, That section 601(a) of chapter 6 of title 17 of the United States Code is amended by striking out "1982" and inserting in lieu thereof "1986".

William H. Catcher

Speaker of the House of &eprentai.

Speaker Pro Teiore

Ceorge Bush

Ve Presdent of the United States and President of the Senate

I certify that this Act originated in the House of Representatives.

Edmund L. Henshaw, Jr.

Clerk

By Thomas E. Ladd

Assistant to the Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000743457
<NAME> 83B.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         201,570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  167,673
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               369,243
<PP&E>                                      19,474,226
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,309,708
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,533,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,754
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,474,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,533,761
<SALES>                                        669,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               676,693
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  707,110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,417)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,417)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,417)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0588

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RYAN PATRICK SULLIVAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 16, 2021, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Jim Rice

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 7 2021

06/07/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0588
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 7, 2018

No. 04-17-00731-CV

IN RE Sam LAJZEROWICZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice 

Irene Rios, Justice

The Relator's Motion for Extension of Time to File Relator's Motion for Rehearing En 

Banc of Denial of Reconsideration (Rehearing) of Supplemented Petition for Writ of Mandamus 

is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to March 16, 2018.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015-CI-20292, styled Sam Lajzerowicz v. Estelita O’Campo Lajzerowicz, 

pending in the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Stephani A. Walsh presiding.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 5, 2022

No. 04-22-00362-CV

Steve NUNEZ,

Appellant

v.

Alma Idalia NUNEZ,

Appellee

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 34916

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Court reporters Lisa A. Traslavina and Melinda Walker filed notifications of late record. 

On June 28 and June 29, 2022, in response to Traslavina’s and Walker’s notifications, 

respectively, we ordered appellant to provide written proofs to this court within ten days of the 

date of the orders that he had paid the reporters’ fees or was entitled to appeal without paying the 

reporters’ fees. We further ordered that, if appellant failed to respond to our orders, his brief 

would be due within thirty days of the date of the orders and we would consider only those issues 

or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). Appellant did not respond to our orders, and appellant has not filed a 

brief. Appellant is therefore ORDERED to file, within fifteen days of the date of this order, his

brief and a written response reasonably explaining: (1) his failure to timely file a brief, and (2) 

why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. If appellant 

fails to timely file a brief and the written response, we will dismiss this appeal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary 

dismissal if an appellant fails to comply with a court order).

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of August, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.47  UTStarcom, Inc. Financial Planning Program  As of January 1, 2009  December 17,
2008  Dear
Executive:  As
you know, UTStarcom offers its Executives a financial planning program.  Effective January 1, 2009 for Executives
hired in 2008 or earlier, UTStarcom will cover up to $5,000 per year of costs
incurred by an Executive in obtaining comprehensive financial planning,
investment management and tax preparation services to assist you in
understanding your financial picture and estate planning and insurance
needs.  Covered services include
retirement planning, education funding, portfolio risk management, concentrated
stock and employee stock option management, 10b5-1 design, income and asset
protection, estate planning, philanthropic gifting, and tax preparation.  While we have made special arrangements for
these services to be provided by Merrill Lynch, you can use any provider of
your choice.  UTStarcom
will pay reimbursements and fees for 2008 no later than March 15, 2009,
subject to your employment with the Company at the time the expense was
incurred.  Thereafter, for expenses up to
$5,000 per year incurred in a given calendar year, reimbursement will be made
on or before March 15 of the following year.  This benefit will be taxable to you as ordinary
income and will not be subject to any off-setting tax gross-up.  The right to reimbursement is subject to your
employment with the Company at the time the expense is incurred, and the
benefit cannot be exchanged for cash or other in-kind benefit.   Sincerely, /s/Mark Green Mark Green SVP, Global Human Resources & Real Estate UTStarcom, Inc.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LUIS PEDREGON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00119

- CR

Appeal from the 205th

Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20170D01684 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 10 TH DAY OF MARCH , 20 20

.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 94 (Monday, May 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 27550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11672]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Bonneville Power Administration


Electrical Interconnection of the Juniper Canyon I Wind Project

AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy 
(DOE).

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Record of Decision (ROD).

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

SUMMARY: The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has decided to offer 
Iberdrola Renewables, LLC, a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement 
for interconnection of up to 150 megawatts of power into the Federal 
Columbia River Transmission System. The power would be generated from 
their proposed Juniper Canyon I Wind Energy Project (Wind Project) in 
Klickitat County, Washington. To interconnect the Wind Project, BPA 
will expand an existing substation (Rock Creek Substation) by 
approximately .25 acres. This decision to interconnect the Wind Project 
is consistent with and tiered to BPA's Business Plan Environmental 
Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0183, June 1995), and the Business Plan 
Record of Decision (BP ROD, August 1995).

ADDRESSES: Copies of this tiered ROD and the Business Plan EIS may be 
obtained by calling BPA's toll-free document request line, 1-800-622-
4520. The RODs and EIS are also available on our Web site, http://www.efw.bpa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Makary Hutson, Bonneville Power 
Administration--KEC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621; 
toll-free telephone number 1-800-622-4519; fax number 503-230-5699; or 
e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a272b223f3e3925240a283a2b642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3558545d4041465a5b755745541b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Issued in Portland, Oregon, on May 10, 2010.
Stephen J. Wright,
Administrator and Chief Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-11672 Filed 5-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: December 10, 2015 106281

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SUSAN J. FILION, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: October 21, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________ Rebecca L. Fox, Plattsburgh, for appellant. Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Ashley M. Monette of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), rendered August 15, 2013, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and attempted unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree. In full satisfaction of a two-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. The charge in question stemmed from defendant's unlawful possession of methamphetamine on or about September 10, 2012. Defendant also waived indictment and, in satisfaction of a superior court information, pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted-2- 106281

unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine in the third degree stemming from an incident that occurred on or about March 14, 2013. Consistent with the terms of the underlying plea agreement, which included a waiver of the right to appeal, County Court sentenced defendant as a second felony offender to an aggregate prison term of nine years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, contending only that the waiver of the right to appeal was invalid and that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. We affirm. Initially, the People concede – and our review of the record confirms – "that defendant did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive her right to appeal her conviction and sentence" (People v Cloutier, 120 AD3d 1462, 1463 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1042 [2014]; see People v Larose, 120 AD3d 1442, 1442 n [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1045 [2014]). As a result, defendant is not precluded from challenging the perceived severity of her sentence (see People v Cloutier, 120 AD3d at 1463). That said, upon reviewing the record as a whole and taking into account defendant's lengthy criminal history, we cannot say that County Court abused its discretion in imposing sentence, nor do we find any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction of defendant's sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Cloutier, 120 AD3d at 1463; People v Howard, 111 AD3d 1021, 1021-1022 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1199 [2014]; People v Ladieu, 105 AD3d 1265, 1266 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1017 [2013]). Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Lahtinen, J.P., Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
# Tentative 2021 Legislative Schedule

**

----

The *tentative schedule* for 2021 has been announced. The list below identifies expected non-legislative periods (days that the Senate will not be in session). The schedule is also available in calendar format (PDF). The 2020 tentative schedule is still available.

XML

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure
# EXHIBIT 23

# INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS' CONSENT--DELOITTE & TOUCHE

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'
CONSENT
Board of Directors
Global Med Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiary:
We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements (No.
333-28155, No. 333-39193, No. 333-45031 and No. 333-69851) on Form S-8 of Global
Med  Technologies,  Inc.  and  Subsidiary,  of our report  dated April 12, 2001,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Global Med  Technologies,  Inc.
and Subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2000.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Denver, Colorado
April 12, 2001
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

The Honorable Miranda Du, District Judge for the U.S. District Court ***

for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YANSEN DERYAWAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70360

Agency No. A099-736-271

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 7, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DU, District Judge.*** 

Yansen Deryawan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, seeks review of the

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirming an Immigration

FILED

JUN 11 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Page 2 of 3

Judge’s (IJ) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Deryawan did not

suffer past persecution. Although Deryawan and his family were victims of

repeated discrimination and harassment on account of their Christian faith and

Chinese ethnicity, these experiences, considered individually or cumulatively, do

not compel the conclusion that Deryawan suffered past persecution. Halim v.

Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975–76 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,

1059–60 (9th Cir. 2009).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Deryawan did not show

a well-founded fear of future persecution. Deryawan’s claim that he fears future

persecution is undercut by his family’s continued residence in Indonesia without

harm and by his initial plan to return to Indonesia. Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015,

1022 (9th Cir. 2009); Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017–18 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Deryawan is also not entitled to relief under a disfavored group analysis because he

has not made a sufficient showing of individualized risk. Halim, 590 F.3d at 979. 

Similarly, Deryawan did provide sufficient evidence to compel the
Page 3 of 3

conclusion that he is likely to be tortured upon his return to Indonesia. Wakkary,

558 F.3d at 1068. 

We also deny Deryawan’s claim that he is entitled to relief because the IJ

violated his due-process rights. Because “the factual record adequately supports

the denial of [Deryawan’s] application for relief, we cannot find that the alleged

bias held by the IJ was the basis for the denial of the application.” VargasHernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007). 

DENIED.