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

CERTIFICATION

I, Mark Thompson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Spark Networks plc;

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 Thompson                    
|Mark Thompson Chief Executive
Officer

August 11, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1098

REGINALD LEE,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DANTE HEMINGWAY,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

DETECTIVE GIGANO; NATE STEVENSON,

Defendants.

No. 04-1099

REGINALD LEE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DETECTIVE GIGANO,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

DANTE HEMINGWAY; NATE STEVENSON,

Defendants.
- 2 -

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-02-2843-WDQ)

Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: July 16, 2004

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

No. 04-1098, affirmed; No. 04-1099, dismissed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Neal Marcellas Janey, Sr., THE JANEY LAW FIRM, P.C., Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-appellee. Reginald Lee,

Appellee/Cross-appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cross-appeals, Reginald Lee and

Dante Hemingway appeal the district court’s denial of their motions

for summary judgment in Lee’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. As

to Hemingway’s appeal, No. 04-1098, we have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of

Hemingway’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Lee v. Hemingway, CA-02-2843-WDQ (D. Md.

Dec. 16, 2003). We dismiss Lee’s appeal, No. 04-1099, as

interlocutory because the district court has not yet entered a

final, appealable order as to all parties. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

No. 04-1098, AFFIRMED;

No. 04-1099, DISMISSED
1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR P UBLICATION

No

. 122,985

IN THE COURT OF APPE ALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appell ee ,

v.

S HIANN E. M ARKRUM , Appell ant

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; W ILLIAM S. W OOLLEY , judge. Opinion filed April 23

, 2021

. Appeal dismissed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition pursuant to K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21

- 6820(g) and (h).

B efore P OWELL , P.J., G REEN and H ILL , JJ.

P ER C URIAM : Shiann E. Markrum appeals from the revocation of her probation. We granted Markrum's motion for summary disposition in lieu of briefs as stated under Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 47). The State responded to this motion for summary disp osition and asked this court to affirm the revocation of Markrum's probation. Concluding that no remedy is available, we dismiss her appeal.

For crimes committed on January 18, 2018, Markrum pleaded guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine in violation of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21

- 5706. The district court sentenced her to 18 months' probation with an underlying prison sentence of 18 months. At a hearing in June 2020, Markrum stipulated to the following probation2

violations: testing positive for methamphetamine on a urinalysis, failing to report a change of address, failing to report a change of employment, and failing to report to her probation supervisor. Markrum asked the court to order a sanction and reinstate her probation. Alternatively, Mar krum requested a reduced prison sentence.

The district court revoked probation and sentenced Markrum to a reduced prison sentence of 15 months, followed by 12 months of postrelease supervision. The journal entry awarded jail credit of 257 days. Markrum ap pealed her probation revocation and imposition of her sentence, filing the notice of appeal on the same day as her sentencing hearing. Now, Markrum has served the prison sentence and is serving the required term of postrelease supervision.

Markrum argues that the district court erred by revoking probation, but her motion for summary disposition concedes that a remedy is not available. Even if this court were to rule that the district court erred in revoking Markrum's probation and remanded for resentencing , the district court could not impose probation because Markrum has served her underlying sentence. See State v. Kinder , 307 Kan. 237, 243, 408 P.3d 114 (2018) (holding that probation may not be reinstated once the defendant has served the underlying sente nce). Further, a term of postrelease supervision after the prison term is required by statute and the duration of postrelease supervision is set by statute. See

K.S.A. 20 20 Supp. 22

- 3717(d)(1)(C); State v. Gaudina , 284 Kan. 354, 368, 160 P.3d 854 (2007). The district court could not provide relief from postrelease supervision if this court remanded for resentencing.

For the preceding reasons, we dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Toronald LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 66497.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

May 16, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 12, 1995.

Curtis C. Crawford, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after a jury convicted him of trafficking drugs in the second degree, § 195.223.3, RSMo 1994, and unlawful use of a weapon, § 571.030.1. We affirm.

We find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion and affirm by summary order. Rule 30.25(b).
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Frank J. Belatti, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of AFC Enterprises, 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 fourth fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
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.


Date:  May 24, 2004



/s/ Frank J. Belatti
---------------------
Frank J. Belatti
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 115 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14974]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Embedded Mass Formed Passives Consortium--USAF 
Wright Laboratory

    Notice is hereby given that, on May 7, 1996, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Embedded Mass Formed Passives 
Consortium has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the 
venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) 
of the Act, the identities of the parties are: Motorola, Inc., 
Schaumburg, IL; the Boeing Company, Seattle, WA; Georgia Tech Research 
Corporation, Atlanta; GA; North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; 
and PolyMore Circuit Technologies, L.P., Maryville, TN.
    The objective of the Consortium is to develop low cost passive 
components which can be integrated into electronic packages, and to 
demonstrate this technology for both military and commercial 
applications.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-14974 Filed 6-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### John BLANKENSHIP, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Charles HUCKSTEP, d/b/a HUCKSTEP OIL COMPANY, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 67909.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Dec. 5, 1995.

Jeffrey P. Hine, Oliver, Oliver & Waltz, P.C., Cape Girardeau, for appellant.

Walter S. Drusch, Lowes & Druseh, Cape Girardeau, for respondent.

Before CRANE, C.J., SIMON, J., and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant claiming that a genuine issue as to a material fact existed. We affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit
      32.1**


**Certification
      Pursuant to**


**Section
      1350 of chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**





Each
      of
      the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter
      63
      of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as an officer of I.C.
      Isaacs & Company, Inc. (“Isaacs”), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report
      of Isaacs on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies
      with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
      that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Isaacs.







Dated:
      April 2, 2007 */s/Peter
      J. Rizzo*


Peter
      J.
      Rizzo ,
      Chief
      Executive Officer










/s/
      Gregg
      A. Holst


Gregg
      A. Holst, Chief Financial Officer










*Back
        to Form 10K*
#### STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. Steven HAVARD, Respondent.

No. WD 52060.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 23, 1996.

Tamara Putnam, Asst. Pros. Atty., Jackson County, Independence, for Appellant.

Gene P. Graham, Jr., Independence, for Respondent.

Before EDWIN H. SMITH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and ELLIS, JJ.

OPINION

EDWIN H. SMITH, Presiding Judge.

Steven R. Havard, respondent, was cited for Driving While Intoxicated on March 17, 1995, in Jackson County, Missouri. His driver’s license was subsequently administratively revoked. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges arising from the citation alleging a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.

Our Supreme Court recently addressed this very issue and held “that the sanction of a license revocation or suspension under § 302.500, *et seq.,*is not punishment for the purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.” *State v. Mayo,*915 S.W.2d 758, 762-63 (Mo. banc 1996). Respondent agrees with the appellant State of Missouri that the trial court erred in dismissing this case due to the *Mayo*ease.

We reverse the trial court’s order dismissing the criminal charges in this case and *505remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

All concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended March 31, 2010 (the
Report) of PennantPark Investment Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Aviv Efrat, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of
my knowledge, that:



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



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



|              
|--------------
|/s/ Aviv Efrat
|Aviv Efrat    
|May 5, 2010
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 2 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 3 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 4 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 5 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 6 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 7 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 8 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 9 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 10 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 11 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 12 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 13 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 14 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 15 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 16 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 17 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 18 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 19 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 20 of 21
Case 2:17-cv-04799-SPL--MHB Document 9 Filed 07/05/18 Page 21 of 21
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 105 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27004-27005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13537]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, and 189


Change of Names and Addresses; Technical Amendment; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Technical amendment; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a 
technical amendment that appeared in the Federal Register of April 2, 
1996 (61 FR 14481). The document amended the regulations in 21 CFR 
parts 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, and 189 to reflect a 
change in the name and mailing address for the Association of Official 
Analytical Chemists International. The document was published with some 
errors. This document corrects those errors.

 DATES: Effective April 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaJuana D. Caldwell, Office of Policy 
(HF-27), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20857, 301-443-2994.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR doc. 96-7919, appearing on p.14481, in 
the Federal Register of Tuesday, April 2, 1996, the following 
correction is made:


Secs. 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, and 189  [Corrected]

    On page 14482, in the 1st column, under the ``Supplementary 
Information'' caption, beginning in line 12, the name and mailing 
address for the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 
International is corrected to read: ``AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 481 North 
Frederick, suite 500, Gaithersburg, MD 20877-2417''.


[[Page 27005]]


    Dated: May 22, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-13537 Filed 5-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Roger Bitsinnie, 

Defendant/Movant. 

 No. CV 17-08267-PCT-JJT (BSB) 

 CR 14-08165-PCT-JJT 

ORDER 

 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) (“R&R”) entered in this 

matter by United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade, recommending that the Court 

deny the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(Doc. 1). Defendant/Movant filed Objections to the R&R (Doc. 19), and the government 

filed a Response to those Objections (Doc. 20). Upon consideration of all the above, the 

Court will deny the Motion. 

 In a painstakingly thorough 28-page R&R, Judge Bade exhaustively analyzed each 

of Defendant/Movant’s five grounds for vacatur of sentence. The Court sees no profit in 

repeating or restating that analysis, which it adopts in whole. Defendant/Movant’s 

Objections simply repeat assertions he has made before and offer nothing new. As the 

government points out in its Response, Defendant/Movant’s assertion of “the truth of what 

really happened” as set forth in the Objections is inconsistent with both the facts as stated 

in the PSR and with the factual basis to which Defendant/Movant confirmed to be the true 

course of events under oath at the change of plea proceeding. And contrary to 
- 2 - 

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 

TERMPSREF 

Defendant/Movant’s current assertions, the record is replete with instances of the Court 

inquiring as to his understanding of proceedings, the purpose of those proceedings, and the 

consequences of those proceedings—to include the first change of plea hearing, a second 

change of plea hearing, a status conference and change of plea hearing, and the sentencing 

hearing. Each of those hearings was attended by a Navajo interpreter and in each of those 

hearings, Defendant/Movant repeatedly responded that he understood with the benefit of 

the interpreter. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED overruling Defendant/Movant’s Objections to the R&R (Doc. 19). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting in whole the R&R (Doc. 18) entered by 

Judge Bade in this matter, including all of its reasoning. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 1). The Clerk of Court shall close this matter. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis. 

 Dated this 8th day of March, 2019. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge