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

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofBlyth, Inc., certify that:

1.      I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blyth, Inc.;

2.      Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.      Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.      The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure 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 andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.      The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 11, 2006

 
|                                             |
|---------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Robert H.  Barghaus                     |   |
| Robert H.  Barghaus                         |
| Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
585 A.2d 347

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TRACEY HODGES.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 365

#### AGORO MARGIOLAS v. CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1676 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1676

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To reauthorize the program of the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
          Development for loan guarantees for Indian housing.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Native American Home Ownership 
Opportunity Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING.

    Section 184(i) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 
(12 U.S.C. 1715z-13a(i)) is amended as follows:
            (1) Outstanding aggregate limitation.--In paragraph (5)(C), 
        by striking ``fiscal years 1997 through 2007'' and inserting 
        ``fiscal years 2008 through 2012''.
            (2) Authorization of appropriations.--In paragraph (7), by 
        striking ``fiscal years 1997 through 2007'' and inserting 
        ``fiscal years 2008 through 2012''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 24, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1676

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To reauthorize the program of the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
          Development for loan guarantees for Indian housing.
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25639]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Amended 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel, 
November 3, 2010, 2 p.m. to November 3, 2010, 5 p.m., National 
Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was 
published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2010, 75 FR DOC. 2010-
21663.
    Date and time was changed from 11/3/2010; 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. to 
reflect 11/10/2010; 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. The meeting is closed to the 
public.

    Dated: October 5, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-25639 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
585 A.2d 358

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALBERT CUNNINGHAM AND BETTY CUNNINGHAM.

July 17, 1990.

Leave to appeal granted and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration in light of *State v. Thomas E. Lund/State v. Michael X. Harrison,*119 *N.J.*35, 573 A.2d 1376 (1990).

Jurisdiction is not retained.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6108

LEON PARRISH MARSHALL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:14-cv-00119-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon Parrish Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia 

Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leon Parrish Marshall appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
585 A.2d 408

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIE HENRY BROWN.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

R O B E R T D O U G L

A S S M I T H , Petitioner-Appellant , v. C HAR L E S L

. RY

A N , W arden, Ariz ona, Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee

. Nos. 96-99025 96-99026 10-99011 D.C. No. CV-87-00234-CKJ District of Ariz ona, Tucson
O RDER

F iled F ebruary

17, 2016 B efore: Mary

M. Schroeder, Stephen Reinhardt, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit J udg es.

OrderS M I T H V . RY A N 2 ORDER The opinion filed F e b ruary 4, 2016 is hereby amended a s follows: 1. Slip Op. at 1 : In the heading , replace “ D O R A B. SCHRI RO” with “CHARL ES L . RYAN”. 2. Slip Op. at 1: In the h e a ding , replace “D.C. No. CV-87- 00234-RMB ” with “D.C. No. CV-87-00234-CKJ D istrict o f Ariz ona, Tucson”. 3. Slip Op. at 4, lines 4 -6: Replace “After that hearing the state trial court denied Smith’s Atkins claim, and the A riz o na Court of Appeal and Ariz ona Supreme Court affirmed.” with “After that h earing , the state trial court denied Smith’s Atkins claim, the Ariz ona Court of Appeals d e n ied special action r e lief, and the Ariz ona Supreme Court denied Smith’s petition for review.”
#### Carl David MEINTZER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-2027.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 17, 2010.

Carl David Meintzer, Jr., Sanford, pro se.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. Because the trial court erroneously determined that the motion was successive and denied it without considering its merits, we reverse.

Appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion on January 21, 2005, which was denied by order dated June 15, 2006. Due to an intervening appeal, however, we vacated the order, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. *Meintzer v. State,*943 So.2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Thereafter, on August 12, 2008, Appellant filed a second rule 3.850 motion asserting additional claims.

On May 3, 2010, the trial court denied both Appellant’s January 21, 2005, and August 12, 2008, motions. With respect to the January 2005 motion, the court denied it based on the rationale of its June 15, 2006, order. With respect to Appellant’s August 2008 motion, the court denied it as *208successive. Because the trial court’s June 15, 2006, order was vacated, Appellant’s August 12, 2008, motion was not successive. Instead, it should be treated as a timely amendment to the original motion and addressed on its merits.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
584 A.2d 241

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAISEY VESSELS.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
                     TECHFORCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK
  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND THE
         THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND SEPTEMBER 30, 1996

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                        Quarter Ended       Quarter Ended     Nine Months Ended   Nine Months Ended
                                                      September 30, 1997  September 30, 1996  September 30, 1997  September 30, 1996
                                                      ------------------  ------------------  ------------------ -------------------
<S>                                                   <C>                 <C>                 <C>                <C>      
Primary:
  Weighted average shares outstanding ...............     8,042,115            7,905,500           8,016,704          7,905,500
  Net effect of dilutive securities, based on the                                                                 
    treasury stock and if-converted methods .........       430,505              433,363             358,469            433,363
                                                      --------------      ---------------     ---------------      -------------
Total Shares used in computation  ...................     8,472,620            8,338,863           8,375,173          8,338,863
                                                                                                                  
Net Income  .........................................   $   332,000          $   864,000         $ 2,225,000        $ 1,263,000
                                                                                                                  
Net income per common and common equivalent share ...   $      0.04          $      0.10         $      0.27        $      0.15

</TABLE> 
Note: Fully diluted earnings per share are the same as primary earnings per
      share.
585 A.2d 403

#### THOMAS KEEGAN v. CITY OF ORANGE TOWNSHIP.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 781 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow charitable organizations to make statements relating to political campaigns if such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax exempt 

purpose. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 

Mr. SCALISE (for himself and Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow charitable organizations to make statements relating to political campaigns if such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax exempt purpose. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Free Speech Fairness 

5 Act’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 781 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALLOWING 501(c)(3) ORGANIZATION TO MAKE 

2 STATEMENTS RELATING TO POLITICAL CAM3 PAIGN IN ORDINARY COURSE OF CARRYING 

4 OUT ITS TAX EXEMPT PURPOSE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 501 of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(s) SPECIAL RULE RELATING TO POLITICAL CAM9 PAIGN STATEMENTS OF ORGANIZATION DESCRIBED IN

10 SUBSECTION (c)(3).— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection 

12 (c)(3) and sections 170(c)(2), 2055, 2106, 2522, 

13 and 4955, an organization shall not fail to be treat14 ed as organized and operated exclusively for a pur15 pose described in subsection (c)(3), nor shall it be 

16 deemed to have participated in, or intervened in any 

17 political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) 

18 any candidate for public office, solely because of the 

19 content of any statement which— 

20 ‘‘(A) is made in the ordinary course of the 

21 organization’s regular and customary activities 

22 in carrying out its exempt purpose, and 

23 ‘‘(B) results in the organization incurring 

24 not more than de minimis incremental ex25 penses.’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 781 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

3 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
647 A.2d 469

#### IN THE MATTER OF LESLIE A. DIENES, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 22, 1994.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Supreme Court recommending that LESLIE A. DIENES of NEW BRUNSWICK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1981, and who was temporarily suspended from the practice of law on March 25, 1991, and who remains suspended at this time, be disbarred, respondent having been convicted of theft by deception, in violation of *N.J.S.A*2C:20-4 and theft by unlawful taking in violation of *N.J.S.A*2C:20-3;

And respondent having failed to appear on the return date of the Order to Show Cause;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the findings of the Disciplinary Review Board are hereby adopted and respondent is hereby disbarred, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board, together with this Order and the full record of the matter, be added as a permanent part of the file of said LESLIE A. DIENES as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey; and it is further

ORDERED and respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this State, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that LESLIE A. DIENES be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that LESLIE A. DIENES comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

*33ORDERED that LESLIE A. DIENES reimburse the Office of Attorney Ethics and the Disciplinary Review Board for appropriate administrative costs.
584 A.2d 206

#### NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. M.S. AND R.A.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 219

#### NOVEL KNIT, INC., ETC. v. DONALD S. HEFT, ET AL.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60256

PETER CLAYTON McCLENDON Plaintiff-Appellant

versus CITY OF COLUMBIA; ET AL Defendants CITY OF COLUMBIA; JAMES R. CARNEY Defendants-Appellees

- - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

- - - - - ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion July 26, 2001, 5 Cir., 2001,

_____ F.3d

____ ) (March 13, 2002) BEFORE: KING, Chief Judge, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES,

SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER, DENNIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.
Opinion filed September 15, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-15-00314-CR

___________

IVAN GARAY LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR21461

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On August 25, 2016, this court abated this appeal and remanded the cause to 

the trial court for a hearing on Appellant’s motion for new trial. The trial court held 

a hearing on the motion for new trial and granted it in part. We dismiss this appeal

without prejudice. 

On September 14, 2016, the trial court signed an order in which it granted a 

new trial in trial court cause no. CR21461 “as to punishment only.” “Granting a new 

trial on punishment restores the case to its position after the defendant was found 
2

guilty.” TEX. R. APP. P. 21.9(c). Thus, Appellant has been returned to the position 

in which he stood immediately following the finding of guilty, and a new trial on 

punishment will proceed as if the original punishment hearing had never occurred. 

Consequently, no final, appealable judgment remains over which this court currently

has jurisdiction. Jackson v. State, No. 05-09-00487-CR, 2010 WL 2598919, at *3 

(Tex. App.—Dallas June 30, 2010, no pet.) (not designated for publication); 

Norris v. State, No. 2-10-014-CR, 2010 WL 1854138 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

May 6, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). This dismissal 

does not in any way prejudice Appellant’s right to file a notice of appeal in this cause

in the future. 

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

September 15, 2016

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 19, 2024.

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, September 19, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A25D0043. HECTOR ANDRADE v. ROSA MUNIZ.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

21CV000676
#### Emmanual ST. CROIX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2005.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 15, 2010.

Emmanual St. Croix, in proper person.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before WELLS, SHEPHERD, and LAGOA, JJ.

WELLS, J.

This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). On appeal from a summary denial, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record, *see*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(A), shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).

Because the record now before us fails to make the required showing, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the post conviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

In the Matter of 

MARCUS JAMES LEMON 

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT 

FROM INACTIVE STATUS 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 118 DB 2016 (No. 71 RST 2016) 

Attorney Registration No. 79463 

(Lancaster County) 

O R D E R 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 19th day of September, 2016, the Report and Recommendation 

of Disciplinary Board Member dated September 8, 2016, is approved and it is 

ORDERED that Marcus James Lemon, who has been on Inactive Status, has never 

been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral 

qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the 

Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the 

Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation 

and processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
#### Glen Ray TANNER v. Marilyn ALLGOOD.

No. 2011-CC-2100.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Allgood, Marilyn; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedí*1204al Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 584,475; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 0945.

Denied.

VICTORY, KNOLL and CLARK, JJ., would grant.
585 A.2d 389

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ERIC JORGENSEN, A/K/A GARY YOUNG.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 241 *N.J.Super.*345, 575 A.2d 31)