alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Jeff L. Sanders, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Integrity Bancshares, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     a) Designated such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b) [Omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]
     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’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 financialreporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: March 29, 2005                                                    /s/ Jeff Sanders   Jeff Sanders   Principal Financial Officer
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1




SECOND AMENDMENT TO

CDW INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION PLAN




          WHEREAS, CDW Corporation, an Illinois corporation (the “Company”), has heretofore adopted and
maintains the CDW Incentive Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”); and




          WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects.




          NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 12 of the Plan, the
Plan is hereby amended effective as of October 19, 2006 as follows:




          1. Section 6 of the Plan shall be amended by replacing the phrase “may all be appropriately
adjusted, as the Committee may determine” with the phrase “shall be equitably adjusted by the
Committee” as it appears in the first sentence thereof.




          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly
authorized officer this 25th day of October 2006.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CDW CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Robert J. Welyki	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Robert J. Welyki	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	VP, Treasurer & Asst. Secretary
Exhibit 32.2

SOHU.COM INC.

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 Annual Report of Sohu.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carol Yu, Co-President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(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 of the Company as of December 31, 2008 and results of
operations of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.



/s/ Carol YuCarol Yu, Co-President and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 26, 2009
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 01, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 01, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20A1643. JAIME CARRERA-CARMAGO v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
* 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 June 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41254 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ISAAC DIAZ-MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-1706

-------------------- Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Isaac Diaz-Medina raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) of Parke Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we, Vito S. Pantilione, President and Chief Executive Officer, and F. Steven Meddick, Sr., Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant            to 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 Section 13(a) 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.

 

 

| /s/ Vito S. Pantilione                |   | /s/ F. Steven Meddick                                |
|---------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Vito S. Pantilione                    |   | F. Steven Meddick                                    |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |   | (Principal Accounting Officer)                       |

 

 

May 13, 2009
```

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12308]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-164-012]

Trunkline Gas Company; Notice of Refund Report

May 10, 1996.
    Take notice that on April 26, 1996, Trunkline Gas Company 
(Trunkline) filed its Report of Distribution of Refunds for Docket No. 
RP94-164 for the period September 1, 1994, through January 31, 1996.
    Trunkline states that the refund was made in compliance with 
Article 4, Section 5 of the Stipulation and Agreement (Settlement) 
filed on January 20, 1995, in the above-referenced proceeding and was 
approved by Commission orders issued July 6, 1995, and December 15, 
1995. On March 29, 1996, Trunkline paid its jurisdictional customers 
the refunds owed to them, including interest through the date of 
payment. Trunkline submits the refund report which consists of 
Appendices A through F.
    Trunkline states that copies of Appendices A through F were sent to 
each of Trunkline's affected customers and their state regulatory 
commissions at the time the refunds were distributed. In addition, each 
customer also received the applicable portion of Appendix G at the time 
the refund was distributed. A copy of the transmittal letter and the 
summary of settlement refund amounts as set forth in Appendix A is 
being served on all affected customers, their counsel of record and 
respective state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before May 17, 1996. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12308 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11262

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

CRISTIAN GAMEZ MENDEZ, Also Known as Cristian Gomez, 

Also Known as Mendez Gamez, Also Known as Christian Gamez Mendez,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 3:17-CR-14-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raising two issues, Cristian Gamez Mendez moves, unopposed, for 

 

* 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

June 21, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-11262 Document: 00514522275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2018
No. 17-11262

2

summary disposition in this appeal of his conviction and sentence for illegal 

reentry after removal from the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) 

and (b)(2). He first maintains that the district court erred by sentencing him 

to a term of supervised release exceeding one year because the enhancement 

provisions in § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. Next, he urges that his guilty plea 

was involuntary and accepted in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 because he was not admonished that the prior-felony provisions of

§ 1326(b) stated an essential offense element that the government was required to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Gamez Mendez correctly concedes that his issues are foreclosed by 

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Because summary 

disposition is appropriate, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 

1162 (5th Cir. 1969), the motion is GRANTED, and the judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-11262 Document: 00514522275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2018
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-2858

_____________________________

AKILAH MCGANN,

Appellant,

v.

JECOMIAH WALKER,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Sean Brewer, Judge.

May 14, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Akilah McGann, pro se, Appellant.
2

No appearance for Appellee.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-14483

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cv-01112-TJC-TEM

HOWARD B. WALD, JR.

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a foreign profit corporation, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(May 20, 2014)

Before CARNES, Chief Judge, DUBINA and SILER,* Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

 

* Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit Court 

of Appeals sitting by designation.

Case: 13-14483 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Appellant Howard B. Wald, Jr., brought this bad faith claim against State 

Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), which insured the 

driver responsible for an accident injuring Wald. The estate of the late driver, Sam 

Gus Felos, escaped liability beyond State Farm’s policy limits despite a tort 

judgment against it because Wald failed to comply with the Florida probate code’s 

statute of limitations. See Fla. Stat. § 733.702(1) (barring claims against estates 

“unless filed in the probate proceeding on or before the later of” three months after 

notice by publication or thirty days after service of notice, where service is 

required), 733.702(4)(b) (excluding from the statute of limitations claims up to the 

policy limits of a casualty insurance policy). The district court granted summary 

judgment because, under Florida law, a third party bad faith claim is derivative of 

the insured’s claim, and an insured suffers no injury supporting his or another’s 

bad faith claim when he is not exposed to liability beyond his policy limits. Perera 

v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 35 So. 3d 893, 902 (Fla. 2010); Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y. 

v. Cope, 462 So. 2d 459, 461 (Fla. 1985); see also May v. Ill. Nat’l Ins. Co., 190 

F.3d 1200, 1202 (11th Cir. 1999) (applying Florida law and concluding that “[i]f a 

deceased insured’s estate is not obligated to pay the excess judgment, then no 

cause of action for bad faith exists”). 

Case: 13-14483 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the

district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of State Farm based upon the 

district court’s well-reasoned order filed on July 25, 2013. 

AFFIRMED.1

 

1 This case was originally scheduled for oral argument but was removed from the oral 

argument calendar by unanimous agreement of the panel under 11th. Cir. R. 34-3(f).

Case: 13-14483 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 Page: 3 of 3
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUISA XIA CHOQUIP,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-71762

Agency No. A070-953-465

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 10, 2013** 

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Luisa Xia Choquip, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming the decision of

an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion an IJ’s denial of a

FILED

JUN 13 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-71762

motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We

deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion by denying Xia Choquip’s motion to

reopen as untimely because Xia Choquip filed her motion to reopen approximately

thirteen years after issuance of the final order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R.

§§ 1003.23(b)(1), 1241.1(f), she failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary

to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679,

and the developments in U.S. asylum law that she identifies do not constitute a

material change in conditions in Guatemala that would qualify for an exception to

the filing deadline, see Aznor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2004).

The court lacks jurisdiction to review Xia Choquip’s contention that mental

trauma prevented her from asserting her asylum claim earlier, because she failed to

exhaust this issue before the agency. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080

(9th Cir. 2010) (“We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an

alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Order entered December 1 8 , 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00477

- CR

KEITHION DYWANE DERR ICK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15

- 25060

- P



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s December 16, 2019 motion to extend time to file his brief.

We GRANT the motion and extend the time to January 13 , 2020

.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARLIN KELLY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 308 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of June, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Jovan Hernandez-Dominguez, 

Defendant.

No. CR-17-50214-PHX-DJH

DETENTION ORDER 

 On November 30, 2017, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The 

Court considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be 

released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to 

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released 

pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 

U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 30th day of November, 2017. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60325

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MELVIN FORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:97-CR-4-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

June 15, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Melvin Ford appeals from his sentence following his guiltyplea convictions for violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.

§ 1319(c)(1)(A). Ford argues that the district court erred by

failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his objections to

the PSR and that the court improperly based his sentence upon

charges in the indictment that had been dismissed. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Because Ford
No. 98-60325

-2-

did not offer any rebuttal evidence to refute the facts contained

in the PSR, the district court was free to adopt those findings

without further inquiry. See United States v. Angulo, 927 F.2d

202, 204-05 (5th Cir. 1991). Further, Ford has not shown that

the district court increased his sentence in any way based upon

the dismissed felony counts in the indictment. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 449 

Of inquiry requesting the President to provide certain documents in his 

possession to the House of Representatives relating to the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s April proposed finding that greenhouse gas emissions 

are a danger to public health and welfare. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2009 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Of inquiry requesting the President to provide certain documents in his possession to the House of Representatives 

relating to the Environmental Protection Agency’s April 

proposed finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a 

danger to public health and welfare. 

1 Resolved, That the President is requested to furnish 

2 the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after 

3 the adoption of this resolution, all documents, including 

4 telephone and electronic mail records, logs and calendars, 

5 and records of internal discussions in his possession pro6 duced by the Administrator of the Environmental ProtecVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:08 May 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR449.IH HR449

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 449 IH 

1 tion Agency or the Director of the Office of Management 

2 and Budget, relating to the following: 

3 (1) The untitled, undated memo marked ‘‘De4 liberative—Attorney Client Privilege’’, which begins 

5 ‘‘The NPRM fails to articulate the process by which 

6 the Administrator came to the conclusion on p. 30’’. 

7 (2) Interagency comments or documents related 

8 to the Environmental Protection Agency’s April pro9 posed finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a 

10 danger to public health and welfare. 

11 (3) Cost benefit or systematic risk analysis re12 lated to the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

13 April proposed finding that greenhouse gas emis14 sions are a danger to public health and welfare. 

15 (4) Scientific evidence that demonstrates health 

16 effects of greenhouse gases. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS