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

CERTIFICATION

I, Mark G. Thompson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Spark Networks, 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)) 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
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

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):

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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Mark G. Thompson   
|Mark G. Thompson       
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 9, 2007
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial 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 Quarterly Report of pSivida Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Leonard S. Ross, Corporate Controller of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 13, 2009



|                    |  |                                                   
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Leonard S. Ross
|Name:               |  | Leonard S. Ross                                   
|Title:              |  | Corporate Controller (Principal Financial
Officer)
#### James KOSTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 69794.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Sept. 10, 1996.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, James Koste, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the decision of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. As no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal opinion, we affirm the judgment of the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5856

Fluor Enterprises, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Brief Stricken and Order filed September 25 , 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00578

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF C .W., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 300th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 89737

- F



### ORDER
Appellant’s brief discloses the name s of the parents at issue in this p arental

rights termination case. The minor’s identity may be ascertainable from the parents’

n ames. The court may order that a minor’s parent or other family member be identified only by an alias if necessary to protect a minor’s identity. Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(1) (B )

. Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. Appellant’s brief, filed September 24 , 2018, is STRICKEN

. 2. To protect the identity of the child at issue in this case, the child’s parents and other family members must be identified only by an alias.Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b)(1)(B).

3. Appellant shall file a brief that complies with Rule 9.8(b)(1) and this order by October 8 , 2018

. 4. If appellant does not file a brief as required by this order, appellant’s counsel may be required to show cause why s he should not be held in contempt of cour t. In addition, the court may require appointment of new counsel due to the failure to timely file appellant’s brief.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of Summer Infant, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I Joseph Driscoll, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



|/s/JOSEPH DRISCOLL                      |  | May 12, 2008
|--------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|Joseph Driscoll
Chief Financial Officer |  |             

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 374 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 374

   Recognizing the roles and contributions of America's teachers to 
building and enhancing our Nation's civic, cultural, and economic well-
                                 being.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2009

   Mr. Graves (for himself and Mr. Guthrie) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing the roles and contributions of America's teachers to 
building and enhancing our Nation's civic, cultural, and economic well-
                                 being.

Whereas education and knowledge are the foundation of America's current and 
        future strength;
Whereas teachers and other education staff have earned and deserve the respect 
        of their students and communities for their selfless dedication to 
        community service and the future of our Nation's children;
Whereas the purpose of ``National Teacher Appreciation Week'', held during May 
        3, 2009, through May 10, 2009, is to raise public awareness of the 
        unquantifiable contributions of teachers and to promote greater respect 
        and understanding for the teaching profession; and
Whereas a number of organizations representing educators, such as the National 
        Education Association and the National Parent Teacher Association, are 
        hosting teacher appreciation events in recognition of ``National Teacher 
        Appreciation Week'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives thanks and promotes the 
profession of teaching to encourage students, parents, school 
administrators, and public officials to participate in teacher 
appreciation events during National Teacher Appreciation Week.
                                 <all>
```
#### FRANK A. SMITH SALES, INC. d/b/a Frank Smith Hyundai, Petitioner, v. J.R. “Bobby” FLORES-Guardian Ad Litem, Respondent.

No. 95-0224.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 8, 1995.

Stephen P. Carrigan, John B. Beekworth, Anthony L. Laporte, Houston, for petitioner.

*488Donna Ramos, McAllen, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

At issue in this case is the reasonableness of a trial court’s award of fees to a guardian ad litem. From the record it appears that the trial court based the fee award in part on post-litigation services to be performed after the conflict of interest which necessitated the ad litem’s appointment had been resolved. The court of appeals affirmed the portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding the guardian ad litem fee. - S.W.2d -.

Both the trial court and the court of appeals rendered judgments prior to our writing in *Brownsville-Valley Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Gamez,*894 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.1995). In *Gamez,*we held that “it is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to award ad litem fees for services performed after resolution of the conflict of interest which gave rise to the appointment.” *Id.*at 754. The trial court should have the opportunity to reconsider the ruling of which petitioner complains in this proceeding in light of our opinion in *Gamez.*Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 170 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, without hearing oral argument, a majority of this Court grants the application for writ of error, and without addressing the merits of the application, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.1

1

. Given our disposition of this case, we need not address whether there was legally sufficient evidence to support the ad litem fee award.
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NATALEE HESSELL

, *

* No. 14

- 1091V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: July 14 , 201 5

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; Tetanus

- diphtheria

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * acellular pertussis (“Tdap”) vaccine;

* shoulder injury related to vaccine

* administration (“ SIRVA ”).

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Lawrence R. Cohan

, Anapol Schwartz

, Philadelphia, PA , for petitioner;

Adriana Ruth Teitel , United States Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, DC, for

respondent.

UNPUBLISHED RULING FINDING ENTITLEMENT 1

On November 10, 2014

, Na talee Hessell filed a petition under the National

Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

— 10 through 34 ( 20 12 ), alleging

that s he suffered from adhesive capsulitis related to her receipt of a Tetanus

d iphtheria acellular pertussis (“ Tdap ”) vaccination in her right shoulder on April

10 , 201 3

.

In her Rule 4(c) report, respondent stated that “ compensation is appropriate

in this case .” Resp’t ’s Rep

. , filed July 9, 2015 , at 1. Respondent added that the

Division of Injury Compensation Progra ms , U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, has reviewed the facts of this case and has concluded that the

1 T he E

- Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107

- 347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17,

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b),

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical inf ormation or other

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special

master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

alleged injury, lasting for more than six months, “is consistent with a shoulder

injury related to vaccine administration (‘SIRVA’),” and thus that “petitioner has

satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 6 (citations

omitted).

Special masters may determine whether a petitioner is entitled to

compensation based upon the record. A hearing is not required. 42 U.S .C. §

300aa

- 13; Vaccine Rule 8(d). Based upon a review of the record as a whole, the

undersigned finds that petitioner has established that s he is entitled to

compensation for her injury.

Accordingly, M s

. Hessell is entitled to compensation. The proces s for

quantifying the amount of damages to which M s

. Hessell is entitled will be

discussed at the status conference previously set for Wednesday, July 1 5, 201 5 at

10:00 A .M. Eastern Time

. 2

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Mary Holmes, at (20 2) 357

-

63 60

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 In anticipation of the status conference, petitioner shall begin gathering the materials

respondent requests in her Rule 4 Report. Resp’t ’s Rep

. at 6

- 7

.
First Amendment to Nautilus, Inc. 2005 Long Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 
 First Amendment to Nautilus, Inc. 2005 Long Term Incentive Plan, 
 as adopted and approved by the
Board of Directors of Nautilus, Inc. on October 30, 2006 
 Section 12(b) of the Nautilus, Inc. 2005 Long Term Incentive Plan
is hereby amended to provide in its entirety as follows: 
  

	 	“(b)	If the outstanding Shares or other securities of Nautilus, or both, for which the Award is then exercisable or as to which the Award is to be settled shall at any time be changed
or exchanged by declaration of a stock dividend, stock split, combination of shares, extraordinary dividend of cash and/or assets, recapitalization, reorganization or any similar event affecting the Shares or other securities of Nautilus, the
Committee shall appropriately and equitably adjust the number and kind of Shares or other securities which are subject to this Plan or subject to any Awards theretofore granted, and the exercise or settlement prices of such Awards, so as to maintain
the proportionate number of Shares or other securities without changing the aggregate exercise or settlement price.”
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 22, 2016

Order 

Clerk

January 22, 2016

151520(57)(59)

SHANNON BITTERMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 151520

v COA: 319663

Saginaw CC: 2013-019397-CZ

CHERYL D. BOLF,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Press Association to file 

an amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on January 15, 2016, 

is accepted for filing. On further order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan 

Press Association to participate in oral argument by sharing five minutes of plaintiffappellant’s allotted time for argument is GRANTED.
2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-7-2006

Rivera v. Comm PA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-2072

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Rivera v. Comm PA" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1478.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1478
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-2072 

 

ANGEL RIVERA

 Appellant

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.

 

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

 (D.C. No. 02-cv-08399)

District Judge: The Honorable Charles R. Weiner

 

Before: BARRY, AMBRO and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

ORDER SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING 

AND REHEARING EN BANC

It appearing that the Petition for Panel Rehearing filed by Appellant having been

submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, and that Appellant

has now raised a question not contained in his brief that we may nevertheless consider

because it relates to jurisdiction, to-wit, a suggestion that the District Court violated Rule

58's requirement that every judgment should be entered on a separate document, it is

ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing is hereby GRANTED and that the
2

opinion heretofore filed is hereby VACATED, and the Clerk DIRECTED to set up a

briefing schedule for the parties limited to the Rule 58 issue only for consideration at a 

date to be determined by the panel. 

BY THE COURT

/s/ Ruggero J. Aldisert, Circuit Judge

DATED: March 7, 2006

CMD/cc: Jeremy A. Mercer, Esq.

 David J. Mussel, Esq.
The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District 1

of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-3892

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District 

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Steven W. Arnold, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 11, 1996

Filed: June 13, 1997

___________

Before BEAM and HEANEY, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE , District Judge. 1

___________ 

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

The United States appeals the district court's reduction of Steven Arnold's

sentence for drug conspiracy pursuant to a Sentencing Commission amendment to the

Career Offender Guideline, United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual

§ 4B1.1 comment. (n.2). In light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v.

LaBonte, No. 95-1726, 1997 WL 273644 (U.S. May 27, 1997), we reverse and

remand for resentencing. 
 -2-

Steven Arnold was sentenced to 360 months (30 years) of incarceration for

various drug crimes. Because he qualified as a career offender, his sentence was

enhanced in accordance with a statute that directs the Sentencing Commission to assure

that certain repeat offenders are sentenced "at or near the maximum term authorized."

28 U.S.C. § 994(h). At the time of his original sentencing, that maximum term, referred

to as the "Offense Statutory Maximum" in the Career Offender Guideline, U.S.S.G. §

4B1.1, had been interpreted to mean the maximum of the enhanced sentencing range,

not the unenhanced range. See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez, 988 F.2d 1384, 1394-97

(5th Cir. 1993). 

The Sentencing Commission later amended the Career Offender Guideline to

define "Offense Statutory Maximum" as the statutory maximum exclusive of any

enhancement based on a prior criminal record. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, comment. (n.2)

(1995). Arnold then filed a motion to reduce his sentence. Over objection by the

government, the district court applied the amendment and reduced Arnold's sentence

to 262 months (21 years, 10 months). This appeal followed. Although we had earlier

ruled that the Sentencing Commission had exceeded its authority in enacting the

amendment, United States v. Fountain, 83 F.3d 946, 953 (8th Cir. 1996), cert. denied,

1996 WL 547024 (U.S. June 2, 1997) (No. 96-6001), we reserved ruling on this case

while the issue was considered by the United States Supreme Court in another case.

The Supreme Court has now rejected the Sentencing Commission's approach as

at odds with the plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 994(h). United States v. LaBonte,

1997 WL 273644 at *4 Because the statute, and not the amended Guideline, controls,

the "maximum term authorized" must be read to include all applicable statutory

sentencing enhancements. Id. at *7. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the

district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
 -3-

A true copy.

 ATTEST:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Crown Media Holdings, Inc.



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-37588) on Form S-8 of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. of our report dated
February 24, 2003 (except as to note 1 and 17, which is as of March 11, 2002),
relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. as of
December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statement of operations and
comprehensive loss, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended,
which report appears in the December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of
Crown Media Holdings, Inc.


KPMG LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 28, 2003