alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Abaxis, Inc.;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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: June 14, 2010
    /s/ Alberto R. Santa InesAlberto R. Santa InesChief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
accompanying financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                              1,000
<SECURITIES>                        1,000,000
<RECEIVABLES>                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    1,000
<PP&E>                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      1,003,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               3,636
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         48,240
<COMMON>                            17,949,113
<OTHER-SE>                         (5,075,745)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        1,003,970
<SALES>                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    0
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                      (596,377)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        (596,377)
<EPS-BASIC>                       (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (.04)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7111

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TIMOTHY NICHOLAS RHODES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:04-cr-00082-H-4)

Submitted: June 30, 2021 Decided: July 21, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Nicholas Rhodes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Nicholas Rhodes appeals the district court’s order granting in part his 

motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 

No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review a district court’s decision whether to grant a 

sentence reduction under the First Step Act for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. 

Jackson, 952 F.3d 492, 297 (4th Cir. 2020) (reviewing ruling on First Step Act motion for 

abuse of discretion but declining to define parameters of such review). We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court’s order and 

deny Rhodes’ motions to appoint counsel and to file a supplement to his informal brief on 

appeal. See 4th Cir. R. 27(c). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Edward A. Imbrogno, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of PDL BioPharma, Inc., certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of PDL
BioPharma, Inc.; and



(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.



Date: April 29, 2020



| | /s/
    EDWARD A. IMBROGNO                                          
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Edward
    A. Imbrogno                                              
| | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer
| | (Principal
    Financial Officer)
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture Research: Leetown, WV
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USDA Civil Rights Policy StatementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Leetown, West Virginia Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture Research Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications
- January 2024
- July 2023
- January 2023
- July 2022
- January 2022
- June 2021
- January 2021
- July 2020
- January 2020
- August 2017
- January 2018
- July 2018
- February 2019
- July 2019

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.Subjects of Investigation
                            Other cultured finfish
                                Salmon
                                Trout


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### A. N. DRYE, Plaintiff, v. RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, Defendant.

(Filed 30 April, 1941.)

Appeal by defendant from *Clement, J.,*at October Term, 1940, of MeckleNbubg.

No error.

Suit by plaintiff to recover for amount alleged to be due as balance on salary under special contract. Defendant denied contract or that it owed plaintiff anything upon bis demand, pleaded tbe statute of limitation and set up cross action by way of counterclaim. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff in tbe sum of $5,208.32, with interest, subject to stated credits, including counterclaim.

Defendant appealed.

*G. T. Carswell and Joe W. Ervin for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Robinson*<fi *J ones for defendant, appellant.*

Peb Cubiam.

Tbe evidence is rather voluminous and is quite contradictory as between that of tbe plaintiff and that of tbe defendant. Tbe evidence of tbe plaintiff, if believed, was fully adequate to maintain bis contentions, and tbe evidence of tbe defendant, if believed, was sufficient to defeat him.

*864It was peculiarly a jury case, and the jury has spoken. We find nothing in the exceptions of the defendant that would justify a new trial.

No error.
#### STATE and ELLEN F. LOWE v. CHARLES N. LOWE

(Filed 3 May, 1961.)

1. Courts § 14—

A recorder’s court established under C.S. 7-218 has jurisdiction of all criminal offenses below the grade of felony, G.S. 7-222, and therefore has jurisdiction of a proceeding under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act to enforce an award of alimony rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction of another State. G.S. 52A-9.

2. Husband and Wife § 18—

The wilful failure of a husband to support his wife is a misdemeanor. G.S. 14-322 and G.S. 14-325.

Appeal by defendant from *Preyer, J.,*November 7, 1960 Civil Term Of RANDOLPH.

On 7 October 1960 Plaintiff Ellen F. Lowe filed a complaint with the clerk of the Recorder’s Court of Randolph County alleging an award of alimony and support made to her by the Court of Common Pleas of Anderson County, South Carolina, in an action there entitled *Charles M. Lowe v. Ellen Faye Lollis Lowe.*She prays for enforcement of that decree as provided by the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. G.S. c. 52A. In response to a summons defendant appeared, entered a special appearance, and moved to dismiss “for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that Randolph County Recorder’s Court was not a court of record as contemplated in G.S. 52A-3 and defined in G.S. 7-326.” Because of the failure of the judge of the Recorder’s Court to promptly rule on the motion, defendant applied *632for writ of *recordari*which was granted. Judge Preyer, after examining the records, concluded the Recorder’s Court of Randolph County had jurisdiction. He remanded the cause to the “Recorder’s Court of Randolph County to be disposed of according to law.” Defendant appealed.

*Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Staff Attorney Richard T, Sanders for the State.*

*Ottway Burton and Linwood T. Peoples for defendant appellant*

PeR CuRiam.

The Recorder’s Court of Randolph County was established pursuant to the authorization given by G.S. 7-218. By express language courts created pursuant to that section are courts of record. They have jurisdiction of all criminal offenses “below the grade of a felony.” G.S. 7-222.

The wilful failure of a husband to support his wife is a misdemeanor. G.S. 14-322, 14-325.

Jurisdiction of proceedings under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act are vested in courts of record “having jurisdiction to determine liability of persons for the support of dependents in any criminal proceeding.” G.S. 52A-9. When the statute was first enacted in 1951 jurisdiction was confined to the Superior Courts, but the statute was amended in 1955 and 1959. Courts established pursuant to the authority given by G.S. 7-218 now have jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints of the character filed by plaintiff in the Recorder’s Court of Randolph County.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In connection with the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard E Lundin, asChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 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 operationsof the Company. 

Date: February 22, 2011
#### STATE v. HENRY ADAMS.

(Filed 31 December, 1926.)

Certiorari — Habeas Corpus — Fugitives From Justice — Requisitions— •Judgments — Appeal and Error — Review.

Where the Governor oí this State has passed upon and allowed a requisition of the Governor of another State for a fugitive from justice who has there been convicted of crime, and in proceedings in *habeas corpus*there is no valid defense made to the judgment concerning which the requisition had been made and allowed, a *certiorari*will be denied in the Supreme Court to bring the proceedings had below up for review.

PetitioN for *certiorari,*in lieu of appeal, to review judgment of *Barnhill, J.,*rendered 14 August, 1926, at Bocky Mount, on return to writ of *habeas corpus,*refusing to discharge the petitioner from custody.

*Attorney-General Brwmmitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*John L. Bridgers and Henry 0. Bourne for petitioner.*

Stagy, 0. J.

The petition made to this Court for a *certiorari,*is based on the following material allegations:

1. That in July, 1926, the petitioner was convicted in the State of Georgia of violating the prohibition law, and, by way of punishment, *788was given ten days witbin wbicb to pay a fine of $150.00 and costs, failing in wbicb be was to serve a term of six months on tbe county roads of Chattooga County. Being unable to raise said fine, tbe petitioner departed from tbe State of Georgia and came to North Carolina, intending to remain here permanently and to make bis borne in this State.

2. That a requisition for tbe extradition of tbe petitioner was duly made by tbe Governor of tbe State of Georgia upon tbe Governor of this State, and after a bearing before tbe Governor of North Carolina, said requisition was honored and a warrant of extradition duly issued for tbe petitioner and delivered to tbe agent of tbe State of Georgia.

On tbe bearing before Judge Barnhill, it was admitted “that tbe said requisition papers are regular and in proper form.” Upon this admission, petitioner’s application for discharge from custody was denied.

Other allegations are set out in tbe petition with respect to tbe manner in wbicb tbe petitioner was arrested and held'prior to tbe issuance of tbe extradition warrant by tbe Governor, but these, it would seem, are no longer material in view of tbe admission made on tbe bearing and incorporated in tbe judgment refusing to discharge tbe petitioner.

While tbe petitioner’s first allegation is couched in soft language, nevertheless it is to tbe effect that be is a “fugitive from justice” witbin tbe meaning of tbe law. *In re Sultan,*115 N. C., 57; *S. v. Hall, ibid.,*817. Tbe petitioner neither denies bis identity nor challenges tbe sufficiency of tbe charge. 11 R. C. L., 734 *et seq.*That be was properly convicted of a crime in tbe State of Georgia is conceded. Hence, it appears that tbe judgment refusing to discharge tbe petitioner is correct. His application for *certiorari*to review tbe judgment must be denied. For a general discussion of tbe questions sought to be presented, see *Robb v. Connolly,*111 U. S., 624.

*Certiorari*disallowed.
Ex-99.4: Aggregate Statement of Principal and Interest Distribution to
         Certificatesholders.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
   Class          Interest          Principle             Losses         Ending Balance
   -----          --------          ---------             ------         --------------
<S>            <C>                 <C>                           <C>     <C>
A              3,783,275.38        846,178.39                    -       92,880,021.61
B1                58,981.18                 -                    -        1,460,600.00
B2                29,490.60                 -                    -          730,300.00
B3                19,657.70                 -                    -          486,800.00
B4                 9,828.84                 -                    -          243,400.00
B5                 9,828.84                 -                    -          243,400.00
B6                19,673.05                 -                    -          487,180.52
R                      0.58            100.00                    -                   -
</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.24

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made as of October 9, 2007, between MUSIC & ARTS CENTER, INC., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”) and Kenneth O’Brien (the “Executive”).  This Amendment amends that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of April 15, 2005 (the “Employment Agreement”), between the Executive and the Company.

 

WHEREAS, the Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Guitar Center, Inc. (“Parent”); and

 

WHEREAS, Parent is party to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 27, 2007, by and among VH AcquisitionCo, Inc., VH MergerSub, Inc. and Parent (the “Merger Agreement”);

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

1.                                       Effective as of the Effective Time (as defined in the Merger Agreement), Section 3(e) of the Employment Agreement is deleted in its entirety.

 

2.                                       Effective as of the Effective Time (as defined in the Merger Agreement), the first sentence of Section 5 of the Employment Agreement is amended to insert the following language after the words “shall be required” and before the word “to”:

 

“, within 30 days of termination of employment, ”

 

3.                                       COMPLETE AGREEMENT.  From and after the execution of this Amendment, the Employment Agreement and Amendment shall be read together as one single agreement.

 

4.                                       OTHER PROVISIONS.  Except as expressly amended and modified hereby, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  If any term or provision of this Amendment shall be inconsistent with any term or provision in the Agreement, the term or provision set forth herein shall control in all respects.

 

5.                                       COUNTERPARTS.  This Amendment may be executed and delivered in one or more counterparts, and by the parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when executed and delivered (whether by delivery of original signature pages or facsimile) shall be deemed to be an original but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.

 

[signature page follows]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.

 

	
 
    	
MUSIC &   ARTS CENTER, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Allan Greenberg
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
EXECUTIVE
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/   Kenneth O’Brien
    
	
 
    	
KENNETH   O’BRIEN
    


 

2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41190

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARIO ALBERTO GARCIA-BALDERAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1408-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Alberto Garcia-Balderas appeals his convictions and sentences of 

being an alien illegally in the United States in possession of a firearm and of 

being a felon in possession of a firearm for which he was sentenced to 120 

months of imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently with each other. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), (g)(5)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2).

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 14, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41190 Document: 00513591979 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2016
No. 15-41190

2

Garcia-Balderas challenges the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) and (g)5), 

arguing that the statute does not require a substantial effect on interstate 

commerce or, in the alternative, that the Government adduced insufficient 

evidence to show that the “mere movement” of the components of a firearm 

constituted a substantial effect on interstate or foreign commerce. As he 

acknowledges, his argument is foreclosed by our prior decisions holding that 

§ 922(g) generally, and § 922(g)(1) in particular, is a valid exercise of 

Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. See United States v. 

Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Daugherty, 264 

F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Wallace, 889 F.2d 580, 583 (5th 

Cir. 1989); see also United States v. Baltazar-Lopez, 273 F.3d 1099 (5th Cir. 

2001) (treating § 922(g)(5) as indistinguishable from § 922(g)(1)).

Garcia-Balderas also argues that his convictions and sentences on 

charges both of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm and of being a 

felon in possession of a firearm are multiplicitous and violate the Double 

Jeopardy Clause. See § 922(g)(1), (g)(5). As the Government concedes, the 

simultaneous charges under § 922(g)(1) and (g)(5), which arise from the same 

single incident of possession of firearms, violate the constitutional prohibition 

on multiple punishments for one offence. See United States v. Munoz-Romo, 

989 F.2d 757, 759-60 (5th Cir. 1993).

We, therefore, VACATE the sentences and REMAND to the district court 

to vacate either of the convictions and resentence Garcia-Balderas on the 

remaining count.

 Case: 15-41190 Document: 00513591979 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2016