alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
Certifications
     I, Wayne K. Bailey, Chief Financial Officer of Ocean West Holding Corporation, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Ocean West Holding Corporation;
     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-14 and 15d-14)for the registrant and have:
          a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is beingprepared;
          b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of adate within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and
          c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial dataand have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
          b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and
     6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.   Date: January 13, 2005 /s/ Wayne K. Bailey  Wayne K. Bailey, Chief Financial Officer
72
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CIRINO FIDENCIO MENDEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-73439 

Agency No. A201-237-693 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 12, 2019**

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Cirino Fidencio Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal 

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAR 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-73439 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 

512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to 

the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. 

Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence 

the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 

2008). We deny the petition for review. 

The agency did not err in determining that Mendez failed to establish 

membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 

1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, 

“[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who 

share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) 

socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 

I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 

1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans”

returning to Mexico does not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v. 

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans 

from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group). Thus, 

Mendez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
3 17-73439 

In his opening brief, Mendez does not make any arguments challenging the 

agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 

1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s 

opening brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 10.8
 ARDEA BIOSCIENCES, INC.
 2000 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
 Approved by the Board of Directors January 25, 2000  Approved by Stockholders February 25, 2000  Revised by Board of Directors October 8, 2007
 1. Purpose.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 2. Administration.
 (a)
 (b)
 (i)
 (ii)
 1.




---



##### 



(iii)
 (iv)
 (v)
 (vi)
 (c)
 3. Shares Subject to the Plan.
 (a) st st
 (b)
 4. Grant of Rights; Offering.
  2.




---



##### 



5. Eligibility.
 (a)
 (b)
 (i)
 (ii)
 (iii)
 (c)
 3.




---



##### 



(d)
 (e) provided, however,
 6. Rights; Purchase Price.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (i)
 (ii)
 4.




---



##### 



7. Participation; Withdrawal; Termination.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 5.




---



##### 



8. Exercise.
 (a)
 (b)
 9. Covenants of the Company.
 (a)
 (b)
 6.




---



##### 



10. Use of Proceeds from Stock.
  11. Rights as a Stockholder.
  12. Adjustments upon Changes in Stock.
 (a)
 (b)
 13. Amendment of the Plan.
 (a)
 (i)
 7.




---



##### 



(ii)
 (iii)
  (b)
 14. Designation of Beneficiary.
 (a)
 (b)
 15. Termination or Suspension of the Plan.
 (a)
 (b)
 8.




---



##### 



16. Effective Date of Plan.
  9.




---



##### 



ARDEA BIOSCIENCES, INC.
 Revised 2000 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN OFFERING
 Adopted October 8, 2007
 1. Grant; Offering Date.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 2. Eligible Employees.
 provided, however
 10.




---



##### 



3. Rights.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 4. Purchase Price.
  11.




---



##### 



5. Participation.
 (a) th th
 (b)
 6. Purchases.
  7. Notices.
  8. Offering Subject to Plan.
  12.




---



##### 



13.
WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hector Francisco-Parra, )

 )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

 vs. ) JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

)

United States of America, ) Case: CV-05-632-TUC-FRZ

) CR-01-616-PHX-FRZ

 Respondent. )

____________________________)

X DECISION BY COURT. This action came under

consideration before the Court. The issues have been

considered and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion (U.S.D.C.

document #49 in CR-01-616-PHX-FRZ) is DENIED and this case

(CV-05-632-TUC-FRZ) is DISMISSED.

October 28, 2005 RICHARD H. WEARE 

Date CLERK

 S/ M. Michelle Mejia 

 M. Michelle Mejia

 Deputy Clerk

Copies to: 

J/B, FRZ, Cortez-Barrera, all Counsel

Case 2:01-cr-00616-FRZ Document 52 Filed 11/01/05 Page 1 of 1
**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, 2011 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Driscoll, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/   Joseph Driscoll     |                     |
|---------------------------|--------------------------|
| Joseph   Driscoll         | Dated: May 12, 2011 |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer |                     |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25228-25229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12570]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
[Docket No. 96N-0151]


SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals; Withdrawal of Approval of a 
New Drug Application for Selacryn<Register> Tablets

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval 
of a new drug application (NDA) for Selacryn<Register> (ticrynafen) 
Tablets held by SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals (Smithkline). 
SmithKline requested that the NDA be withdrawn because the product is 
no longer being marketed. SmithKline also waived its opportunity for a 
hearing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lola E. Batson, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1038.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated June 30, 1994, SmithKline, 
Four Falls Corp. Center, Route 23 and Woodmont Ave., P.O. Box 1510, 
FF0410, King of Prussia, PA 19406, requested that FDA withdraw NDA 18-
103 for Selacryn<Register> (ticrynafen) Tablets, stating that the 
company discontinued

[[Page 25229]]

marketing the product in 1980 because of liver toxicity observed after 
approval of the NDA. SmithKline waived its opportunity for a hearing.
    Therefore, under section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(e)) and under authority delegated to the 
Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (21 CFR 5.82), 
approval of NDA 18-103, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is 
hereby withdrawn effective May 20, 1996.

    Dated: May 6, 1996.
Murray M. Lumpkin,
Deputy Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 96-12570 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 51 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 51

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      January 13, 2009.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be and are hereby elected to the 
following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
            (1) Committee on house administration.--Ms. Zoe Lofgren of 
        California, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Gonzalez, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. 
        Davis of Alabama.
            (2) Committee on rules.--Mr. Perlmutter, Ms. Pingree of Maine, Mr. 
        Polis of Colorado.
    Sec. 2.  Paragraph (5) of House Resolution 24, One Hundred Eleventh 
Congress, agreed to January 7, 2009, is amended by striking ``Mr. Bishop of 
Utah,'' and inserting ``Mr. Bishop of New York,''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

SUNIL CHANDRA KATIAL, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0071 PRPC

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-048184-001

The Honorable John R. Ditsworth, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Law Offices of Robert J. McWhirter

By Robert J. McWhirter

Counsel for Petitioner

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

FILED 6-14-2018
STATE v. KATIAL

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James 

P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

P E R C U R I U M:

¶1 Petitioner Sunil Chandra Katial seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s third 

successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not shown an abuse of discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of Fortified Holdings
Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly Report), I, Dennis Mee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted), that:

|1. | The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company at the end of the periods covered by the
      Quarterly Report.

|Date: June 14, 2007 |     |                        
|------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                    | By: | /s/ Dennis Mee         
|                    |     | Dennis Mee             
|                    |     | Chief Financial Officer

---
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 Annual Report of EarthBlock Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Gregory A. Pitner, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and result of operations of the Company.




EarthBlock
      Technologies, IncDate:
      May 22, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Gregory A. PitnerGregory
      A. PitnerChief
      Executive Officer
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. 

Nathan Lee Nelson,

Defendant.

No. CR-17-8322-PCT-DLR

DETENTION ORDER

On July 27, 2022, 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 27th day of July, 2022.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cr-08322-DLR Document 72 Filed 07/27/22 Page 1 of 1
#### Leonard HOPKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56560.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 6, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 14, 1990.

*728James Stewart McKay, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Leonard Hopkins, appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and no prece-dential value would come from a full opinion. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12697]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324]


Carolina Power & Light Company; Notice of Withdrawal of 
Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Carolina Power & Light Company (the licensee) to 
withdraw its March 31, 1995, application for proposed amendment to 
Facility Operating License Nos. 50-325 and 50-324 for the Brunswick 
Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Brunswick County, North 
Carolina.
    The proposed amendment would have provided an exception to 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.0.4 that would have permitted an 
operational mode change of a unit if the second unit was in cold 
shutdown or refueling (Operational Conditions 4 or 5 respectively) and 
one of the second unit's offsite power circuits was inoperable.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on April 13, 
1995 (60 FR 18860). However, by letter dated December 20, 1995, the 
licensee withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated March 31, 1995, and the licensee's 
letter dated December 20, 1995, which withdrew the application for 
license amendment. The above documents are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20555, and at the University of North Carolina at 
Wilmington, William Madison Randall Library, 601 S. College Road, 
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-3297.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of May 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda L. Mozafari,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-12697 Filed 5-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
H. Res. 501 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 4, 2009. 

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 626) to provide that 4 of the 12 weeks of parental leave made available to a Federal employee shall be 

paid leave, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 

bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under 

clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined 

to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under 

the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All 

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 

bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
2 

•HRES 501 EH 

Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 

amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 

report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 

report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the 

time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 

the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 

Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 

waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 

At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 

the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
LANGLEY & BANACK INCORPORATED 

Attorneys and Counselors at Law 

Catherine M. Stone 

Board Certified - Civil Appellate Law 

Texas Board of Legal Specialization 

Email Address: cstone@langleybanack.com 

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk 

Fourth Court of Appeals 

Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 

300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

July 23, 2015 

Re: VACATION LETTER 

Case No. 04-15-00318-CV; Gemini Insurance Co. and Berkley Oil and Gas 

Specialty Services, LLC v. Drilling Risk Management, Inc.; Fourth Court 

of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas 

Dear Mr. Hottle: 

I am scheduled to be out of my office on the following days: 

September 2-4, 2015; and 

October 14 - 28, 2015. 

Please do not schedule any hearings on these dates. Thank you. 

CMS:thr 

cc: R. Russell Hollenbeck 

Charles Joseph Cain 

Sincerely, 

~A-Pt~})J.;O ~ M. ~ 

Stone 

TRINITY PLAZA II • 745 EAST MULBERRY, STE 900 

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78212-3166 • T 210.736 . 6600 • F 210.735.6889 

WWW.LAN G LEYBANAC K . COM 

SAN ANTONIO • CARRIZO SPR IN GS • EAGLE PASS • KARNES CITY • CASTROVILLE 

..,........ 

iii MERITAS' LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE 

ACCEPTED

04-15-00318-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

7/23/2015 5:20:36 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/23/15 5:20:36 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk