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

 

**Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14 and Rule 15d-14**

**of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

 

I, Brian T. McGee, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Lexar Media, Inc.; 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 thisreport, 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 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 registrant and have: 

 

(a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, 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 andprocedures 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 anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, 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 controlover 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 operationof 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 notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:  May 7, 2004
#### Philip Fitzpatrick, Respondent, v. Benjamin F. Burdick, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
* This order and judgment is not binding preced ent, except under the doctrines

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral es toppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nev ertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condition s of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 1 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 15 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 97-3079
v. (District of Kansas) KHAMMOUK NAMPHENGSONE,

Defendant - Appellant. (D.C. No. 94-10122-01)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO, KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
Khammouk Namphengsone appeals his conviction and se ntence after a guilty plea. After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and order the case submitted without oral2

argument
. The government charged Mr. Namphengsone with robbery (a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951) and carrying or using a firearm d uring a robbery during which a murder was committed ( a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(i)(1)). After Mr. Namphengsone pleaded guilty to both counts, the gov ernment filed a motion for downward departure pursuant to § 5K1.1 of the Unite d States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court granted the motion and sentenced Mr. Namphengsone to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 240 months on Count 1 and 264 months on Count 2. In this appeal, Mr. Namphengsone’s attorney has fil ed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mr. Namphengsone’s attorney states that the appeal presents no non-frivolous legal que stions for review. He declares that Mr. Namphengsone entered a valid plea of guilty and that Mr. Namphengsone’s sentence was lawfully imposed. Upon the filing of the Anders brief, this court afforded Mr. Namphengsone an opportunity to respond. No response has been received from him. We agree with Mr. Namphengsone’s counsel and the go vernment. The record establishes that Mr. Namphengsone entered in to the guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily and in compliance with Fed. R. Crim . P. 11 and that the district3

court properly determined his sentence.
Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by Mr. Namphengsone’s counsel and affirm Mr. Namphengsone’ s conviction and sentence.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge
EXHIBIT A-12 

Exhibit A-12 Page 328

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 1

of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 329

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 2

of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 330

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 3

of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 331

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 4

of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 332

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 5

of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 333

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 6

of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 334

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 7

of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 335

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 8

of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 336

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page 9

of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 337

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

10 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 338

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

11 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 339

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

12 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 340

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

13 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 341

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

14 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 342

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

15 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 343

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

16 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 344

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

17 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 345

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

18 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 346

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

19 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 347

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

20 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 348

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

21 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 349

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

22 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 350

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

23 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 351

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

24 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 352

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

25 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 353

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

26 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 354

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

27 of 28
Exhibit A-12 Page 355

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4903-13 Filed: 11/27/19 Entered: 11/27/19 17:31:51 Page

28 of 28
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5052 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:10:18 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5052 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:10:18 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5052 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:10:18 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5052 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:10:18 Page 4 of

4
Exhibit 99.2
 
 CERTIFICATE 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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-K of Siga Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arun Kumar, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, 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 my knowledge and belief:
 
 a.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 b.The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 Date: October 20, 2009
 
 
 ARUN KUMAR
 Arun Kumar
 Chief Executive Officer,
 President and Director
 
 
 
 
 -1-
#### Thomas Crimmins, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company and Another, Appellants.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.—

Per Curiam :

We see no way in which a reversal of this judgment can be avoided because of the failure to show any devolution of the title of the first lessor upon the last lessors. The attention of the counsel was pointedly drawn to that point upon the trial but without showing the slightest connection between the lessors in the two leases. A recovery is sought upon the ground that the second lease is a renewal *of*the first. It is true that the second lease recites that it is a renewal of the old lease, but the lessors are different and there is no proof of how the lessors of the so-called renewal lease acquired title, if any they had. We do not see how we can avoid this objection. The case seems to have been tried in all other respects, but the point argued is fatal. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants. to. abide event.

Present — Van Brunt, P. J., and Parker, J.
Exhibit 10.3


        AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE


        TO THE


        HENRY SCHEIN, INC.


        SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


        AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2008


         


        WHEREAS, Henry Schein, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Henry Schein, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2008 (the “Plan”);


        WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 16 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company or an authorized committee may amend the Plan;


        WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee is authorized to amend the Plan; and


        WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee wishes to amend the Plan to provide for a special one-time contribution for the 2008 Plan year.


        NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of January 1, 2008 as follows:


        
            	
                        1.

                    	
                        Section 3(a) of the Plan is amended to include the following language at the end thereof:

                    


        


        “(a)     Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, solely with respect to the 2008 Plan Year, the Employer shall make a book entry contribution to the Deferral Account of each Participant, and any Eligible Employee if designated in writing by the Committee, in an additional amount determined by the Committee in its sole discretion, regardless of
        whether such Participant or Eligible Employee is employed by the Employer on the crediting date.”


        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed June 16, 2009.


        
            	
                         

                    	
                        HENRY SCHEIN, INC.

                    


        


         


        
            	
                         

                    	
                        By:

                    	
                        /s/ Michael S. Ettinger

                    
	
                        Title:

                    	
                        Senior Vice President
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 LDK Solar Co., Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2012, as amended (the Report), I, Xiaofeng Peng, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: August 21, 2012



By:

/s/ Xiaofeng PengXiaofeng PengChairman and Chief Executive Officer
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4124 Filed: 10/03/19 Entered: 10/04/19 12:20:11 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4124 Filed: 10/03/19 Entered: 10/04/19 12:20:11 Page 2 of

2
Exhibit 4.3


 


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated July 6, 2016, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-211078) of Smart Trust 250, comprising
Smart Trust, Morningstar Dividend Yield Focus Trust, Series 14.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


July 6, 2016
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-151-2015]

On November 9, 2015, the Acting Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Greater Metropolitan Area Foreign Trade Zone Commission, grantee of FTZ 119, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 119 on behalf of CNH Industrial America LLC in Benson, Minnesota.

                    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (80 FR 70752, November 16, 2015). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval.                

Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 119L is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 119's 2,000-acre activation limit.

Dated: January 20, 2016.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-01574 Filed 1-25-16; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
**EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Clifton W. Sink, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of SteelCloud, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial 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 forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially 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 the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: September 14, 2007 By:  /s/ Clifton W. Sink, Jr.    Name:  Clifton W. Sink, Jr.    Title:  Chief Executive Officer and President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John P. Kirwan, Appellant.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted. Opinions by

Van Brunt, P. J.,

O’Brien and Patterson, JJ.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1230 | August 29, 2018 Page 1 of 2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Yvette M. LaPlante

Keating & LaPlante, LLP

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Caroline G. Templeton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Amber Krieg,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

August 29, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-1230

Appeal from the Vanderburgh 

Superior Court

The Honorable Robert J. Pigman, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

82D03-1511-F4-7265

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

[1] Amber Krieg appeals the revocation of her placement in the Vanderburgh 

County Community Corrections work-release program. We reverse. Krieg was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1230 | August 29, 2018 Page 2 of 2

accused of violating Condition 14 of the work-release program, which provides, 

“I will not use or consume any illegal drugs, or controlled substances without a 

valid current prescription.” Ex. 1.1 The only evidence the State presented to 

show that Krieg violated this condition was the testimony of two residential 

officers who believed that Krieg was “intoxicated” and “under the influence of 

an unknown substance” one day at the work-release facility. Tr. pp. 6, 10, 14, 

15. The problem with this evidence is that even prescribed drugs can cause a 

person to be intoxicated. See, e.g., Alfrey v. State, 960 N.E.2d 229, 234 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2012), trans. denied. As such, the mere fact that Krieg appeared 

intoxicated does not, standing alone, support the conclusion that she used or 

consumed an illegal or unprescribed drug. Notably, Krieg testified at the 

revocation hearing that she had been prescribed Seroquel (which can cause 

drowsiness, according to the FDA), that she had taken a dose the night before 

she was observed to be intoxicated, and that she felt “a little drowsy” and “[a] 

little groggy” when she woke up the next day. Tr. pp. 17-18. The State failed 

to prove that Krieg had taken anything other than that dose of Seroquel. 

[2] Reversed.

Riley, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.

 

1 The petition to revoke that was filed alleged that Krieg had violated “section IV of the VCWR Handbook,” 

which apparently provides that “any use or possession of intoxicants, unauthorized or illegal drug is strictly 

prohibited.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 57. At the revocation hearing, however, no mention was made of 

that provision. The hearing focused on Condition 14 of the work-release program. Tr. p. 6. Similarly, the 

State discusses only Condition 14 of the work-release program in its brief on appeal.