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


**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**





I, Daniel L. Westrope, certify that:







1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of State Financial Services Corporation;




2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




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




(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and




5.
The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of 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 9, 2004








By: /s/ Daniel L. Westrope





Daniel L. Westrope


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5134 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5134

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 24, 2014

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To extend the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and 
 Integrity and the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance 
                             for one year.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INSTITUTIONAL 
              QUALITY AND INTEGRITY.

    Section 114(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1011c(f)) is amended by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2015''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STUDENT FINANCIAL 
              ASSISTANCE.

    Section 491(k) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1098(k)) is amended by striking ``2014'' and inserting ``2015''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 D0 05 0 . DANTE FREDRI CK v . THE STATE.

In 2 0 1 2

, Dan t e Fred ri ck p l ed g u i l t y t o t w o co u n t s o f th eft b y d ecep t i o n an d

t h ree co u n t s of p os s es si o n o f a fi rearm b y a co n v i ct ed fel o n . Fred ri ck s u bs eq u en t l y

fi led a “ M o t io n i n Arres t o f Ju d g m en t ,” as k i n g t h at h i s g u i l ty p l e a c o n v i ct i o n s b e

v acat ed

. Th e t ri al co u rt den i ed th e m ot i on o n Oct ob er 3 1

, 20 1 4

. On A u g us t 11

, 2 0 1 5,

Fred ri ck f

i l e d an ap p l i cat io n fo r d i s cret i on ary ap p eal fro m th e tri al co u rt ’ s o rd er in

t h e Su prem e Co u rt , wh i ch t ran s ferred t he cas e t o t hi s Co u rt

. 1 W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

A d i s cret i o n ary ap p l i cat io n m u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry o f th e o rd er

s o u g ht t o b e ap p eal ed

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ). Th e req u i rem en t s of OCGA § 5 -6

-

3 5 are ju ri s d i ct i o n al

, an d t hi s Co u rt can no t accep t an ap p l i cat i o n fo r ap p eal n o t m ad e

i n co m p l i an ce t h erewi t h

. See Hi l l v. S ta t e

, 2 0 4 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8 2 (4 2 0 SE2 d 3 93 ) (1 9 9 2 ).

Fred ri ck s u b m i tt ed h i s ap p l i cat i o n 2 84 d ays a f t e r en t ry o f t h e o rd er d en y i n g h i s

m o ti o n i n arres t o f j u d gm en t

. Hi s ap p l i c a t i o n i s t herefo re u n t im el y an d we l ack

ju ri s d i ct i o n t o co n s id er i t . Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s ap p l i cat i o n i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

1 Th e Su p rem e Co u rt n o t ed t h at al t h ou g h Fred ri ck al s o at t ach ed a J u ly 1 4

, 2 0 1 5

i n t erl o cu t o ry o rd er en t ered i n a h ab e as act i o n

, h i s arg u m en t s do n o t ad d res s t h at

o rd er. October 09, 2015C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 10/09/2015
<TABLE>

                                                                                                                     EXHIBIT 11.1

               INTERLINK COMPUTER SCIENCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE (1)
                      (in thousands, except per share data)

<CAPTION>

                                                                              Three months ended               Six  months ended
                                                                              ------------------               -----------------
                                                                           12/31/96        12/31/95        12/31/96         12/31/95
                                                                           --------        --------        --------         -------
                                                                                  (unaudited)                    (unaudited)
<S>                                                                        <C>             <C>              <C>             <C>     
Primary and fully diluted:
     Weighted average shares:
         Common ..................................................           6,492           2,445            5,740           2,445
     Common equivalent shares from stock options
         and warrants ............................................           1,179            --              1,146            --
     Common and common equivalent shares pursuant
         to Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83 .....................            --               680             --               680
                                                                           -------         -------          -------         -------

Shares used in per share calculation .............................           7,671           3,125            6,886           3,125
                                                                           =======         =======          =======         =======

Net income (loss) ................................................         $   903         $(8,661)         $ 1,342         $(8,407)
                                                                           =======         =======          =======         =======

Net income (loss) per share ......................................         $  0.12         $ (2.77)         $  0.19         $ (2.69)
                                                                           =======         =======          =======         =======


<FN>
(1) There is no  difference  between  primary  and fully  diluted net income per
share for all periods presented.
</FN>
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

I, Michael Brandofino, Chief Executive Officer of Glowpoint, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)

The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.

Date:  May 13, 2008

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ MICHAEL BRANDOFINO 
| | Michael Brandofino     
| | Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (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 Glowpoint, Inc. and will be retained by Glowpoint, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

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

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41442 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BAIRON JESUS TROCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-497-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Bairon Jesus Trochez appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. For the first time on appeal, Trochez argues that his sentence violates United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), insofar as he was sentenced under the mandatory Sentencing Guideline regime, and that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Because of misstatements by the magistrate judge and theNo. 04-41442 -2- district court regarding the scope of the sentence appeal waiver, we pretermit the question whether this appeal is barred by the waiver. Trochez’s Booker claim fails because he cannot show that the alleged error affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 267 (2005); United States v.
Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). The sentencing hearing transcripts are silent regarding whether the district court would have reached a different conclusion had the Guidelines been advisory. Moreover, the fact that the district court imposed the minimum guideline sentence is, standing alone, no indication that the court would have reached a different conclusion under an advisory scheme. See United States v. Bringier , 405 F.3d 310, 318 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 264 (2005). Trochez therefore cannot carry his burden of showing that the result likely would have been different had he been sentenced under the advisory scheme, and he cannot show plain error that affected his substantial rights.
See Mares , 402 F.3d at 522. He argues for the first time on appeal that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi and Justice Thomas’s statements in his concurrence to the opinion in Shepard v. United States , 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1263 (2005). Trochez acknowledges that his argumentNo. 04-41442 -3- is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi and Shepard did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; Shepard , 125 S. Ct. at 1262-63. We must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
OFFICF. OF THE ATCORNEY QE:NlSAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN



### -c.- --



# 8iea.8 proTi4.r; 00:**I8 tha**  **.uo ot**  Atlanta **f#a Stoker**  Wltfeh **vu oitm,** 



### tbo **Bvprom Oowt**  **at Our&a**  **hrld Ohat**  **u&r the**  **pnnirionr of**  **ula** 

### aration **484** 

### nalty **urohwd with**  **w.rb nomy**  **uaa** 

### l xugt iron tautloa bf l lPtys That eplni;; waa$l$p-- d on July JIO,19% EOWOYU', on Prbrua tEa 

### uu of 90atr ~8. Blair, M 9. W. (6f 486, th&i\lprsam Court 41 TUUiOrtee 

### held that 

### 8Wh propor ir not 

### l rorrpt iron tuaion by 

### shr stasr. Thi8 4480 148 appOd.6 to 

### th@ 8aopr.m Goart of tho Unitob St&o@, 

### rhioh oa 9444mb4r 4, lass fa UI OPirit?~ bT J<. 

### zU8tiOa oUdOW, 4.ffiXVU6 tbr 

### Wlspmt cad 

### OpfBba of the Saxwomo Couxt oi Twnouoo, **bol&fne rash**  **pro&mrtl to**  **ba tax&lo**  **bl tb**  **Btrta u4**  l**x**
**Y** 

### bhpp~~ln( th0 &i&kg Of th4 f&Or& f3&~84 E.z n %ha Atlanta 

### vs. aLok l

### w*r ‘hotter 

### V8. mnnl

### 4u0 a000. 8. au4, 

### 84 8, ct. us, w L. tdr 568. m40, 

### yog dll uo that 

### *ho Suprw Court of the 

### Uaitod Strtrr 

### hu wttfod 

### th q&t)l$iOQ&n8ut tha 

### rxe~tion.

Jurtharamr on &ugwt U USS, 00 488 -0tab srotion 4546, 2% tfait*d atutor Gob Annatato , sa fOllOW8~ Dgr "It 464ar A88+4biuty sod rxempt **atrtw of**  gqamtr **of bomfito**  **- my**  **ment# or**  **bmofltr** 

### Aw **or to**  **booom au@**  **shall not**  **bs** 

### l

rrigaabl6r, **aa4 suoh**  **py rats**  a a 4 0

t6, or a wooant o f, l benoil414Py a a 6er

l la Of tbr trW8 r Oh tb l6 : to *4 tw a Bl a 

### b e l Xom, p8 fmatulm

### tion, **rhall bo**  **ox-t iron**  **the** 4I.d~ **of orodltor~,**  **an& &all**  **not br**  

### liable to l ttwharnt, 

### la *rl

or l lr um b l

or Ona er say la& or oqdtrblo proooea whatever, either boioro or attor nootgt bl t&o boaofleiu~. 

### Saeh prtwirioar &all not attaoh 

### to olab~8 of tha Udtob. 8tatm8 ad8 9 UuMr wuh hws nor rhal1 tha 

### l x4a!# on h4rdn 40ntaln46 48 to 04x4- 

### tion 

### oxtend to any pfogmrt~ 

### purehwod in P 

### ut 6r wh6lly w&t 

### of ouah wylWBt#. Au&. 18, lQSS, 4. 510, I:8, 49 mat. 609.)"
IOU Will thW #a0 that in th18 **AotthO** haCr48@ hW 

### l xgrauly **denlad** 

### tha ccamption tb 

### prowrtr pu~ohaaed out of 

### 8UOhpaflpCntOe

Sl.aao@ our atat. c6S8titUti4E sontdJu an autboritf**lbnor4blr** ullnt **A. BurEun,**  **P4. 8** 



### for ita 

### l

x*~tIoa, Art1410 8, 

### Wtioa I, theroof nqulnr. thrt **lt br**  **turQ.** TOW qU48tiOB th4NfOn mU8t n44.88-117 

### bo anmar. in tb Wg8tiVO.

Tour0 rrry truly
ATTORJIEI OEIIKRAL OF TESLAB

ATTORNEY GENERAL
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofCarreker Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending April 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, John D. Carreker, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ JOHN D. CARREKER, JR.                      |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|
| John D. Carreker, Jr., Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

Dated:  June 8, 2005

 

1

----
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J.R. and I.R., children, * From the 326th District Court

 of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 8126-CX.

No. 11-16-00203-CV * January 17, 2017

 * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

we reverse the order of the trial court insofar as it terminated the mother’s 

parental rights, and we remand this cause to the trial court for further 

proceedings to be commenced within 180 days of this court’s mandate.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5493 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5493

To amend the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1989 to expand the Coast 
Guard Junior Reserve Officers Training Program Pilot Program to include 
   a Coast Guard unit at Pinellas Park High School in Pinellas Park, 
                    Florida, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 16, 2014

  Mr. Jolly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1989 to expand the Coast 
Guard Junior Reserve Officers Training Program Pilot Program to include 
   a Coast Guard unit at Pinellas Park High School in Pinellas Park, 
                    Florida, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF COAST GUARD JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING 
              PROGRAM PILOT PROGRAM.

    (a) Inclusion of Additional School.--Subsection (a) of section 204 
of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-225; 14 
U.S.C. 92 note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``in cooperation'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(1) in cooperation'';
            (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
        and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(2) in cooperation with the Pinellas County School 
        District of Pinellas County, Florida, as part of Pinellas Park 
        High School (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
        `High School').''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further amended--
            (1) by inserting ``and the High School'' after ``Academy'' 
        in subsections (b)(2), (c), and (d) (the first and third places 
        ``Academy'' appears); and
            (2) by inserting ``or the High School, as the case may be'' 
        after ``Academy'' in subsection (d) (the second place 
        ``Academy'' appears).
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    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 Justice

###### Drug Enforcement Administration

                    By Notice dated January 27, 2010, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 5, 2010, (75 FR 6062), Wildlife Laboratories, 1401 Duff Drive, Suite 400, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of Etorphine Hydrochloride (9059), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.                

The company plans to import the listed controlled substance for sale to its customers.

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Wildlife Laboratories to import the basic class of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Wildlife Laboratories to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed.

      ( print page 32506)    
Dated: May 28, 2010.

Joseph T. Rannazzisi,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 2010-13738 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-P