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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of Blyth, Inc., certify that:

 

1.                  Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blyth, Inc.;

 

2.                  Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                  Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                 Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that 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.                 Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: September 9, 2005

 

 
| /s/ Robert H. Barghaus |   |
|------------------------|--------|

Robert H. Barghaus

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

----
Order filed June 16, 2022

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-22-00130-CV

___________

TERESA SHUMSKIE, Appellant

V.

TRINA FINNELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 441st District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV56097

O R D E R

On May 27, 2022, Appellant, Teresa Shumskie, filed a motion in this court 

pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. She requested that 

this court (1) issue emergency temporary orders to prevent disbursement of money

held in the registry of the trial court and (2) vacate the trial court’s supersedeas orders 

and rule on the merits of Appellant’s request for a supersedeas bond. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 24.4. Pursuant to Appellant’s request, we issued an order granting a

temporary stay. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(c). 
2

The parties have now reached an agreement regarding supersedeas, the funds 

held in the registry of the trial court, and the enforcement of the trial court’s 

judgment. Furthermore, the trial court has signed an agreed order effectuating the 

parties’ agreement. Appellant has notified this court that the agreed order moots her 

Rule 24.4 motion. Accordingly, we vacate our May 31, 2022 order granting a 

temporary stay, and we dismiss as moot Appellant’s Emergency Rule 24.4 Motion 

for Temporary Orders and for Review of Trial Court Supersedeas Rulings. 

PER CURIAM

June 16, 2022

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
Exhibit 34.6



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services,
Inc. (the Company), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider (the Platform), as of December 31, 2014 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi),
1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Companys
compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion based on our examination.

Our
examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company
performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not
designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2014 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP

February 11, 2015

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, TX 75201-2997

T. (214) 999 1400, F. (214)754 7991, www.pwc.com/us
#### Kirk D. HARRIS, Appellant, v. Nekisha D. HARRIS, Appellee.

No. 1D11-1446.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 18, 2011.

Kirk D. Harris, pro se, Appellant.

Nekisha D. Harris, pro se, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The Court has determined that the lower tribunal’s March 15, 2011, Order is not a final order because it fails to resolve the issues of parental time-sharing and parental responsibility. *Cf. Ward v. Bragg,*957 So.2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction where order on appeal contemplated additional hearing on visitation). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed as premature. The dismissal is without prejudice to the appellant’s right to seek review upon entry of a final order.

BENTON, C.J., CLARK and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          21,778
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             256
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        129,556
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 273,977
<DEPOSITS>                                     155,246
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,424
<LONG-TERM>                                     75,992
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            51
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,264
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 273,977
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,408
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  484
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,892
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,844
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,944
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,948
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     (14)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 53,257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,547)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (25,547)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,466)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.85)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.62
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,028
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,323
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,438
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                       350
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,774
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,774
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997  
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1998  
<CASH>                                            674,000  
<SECURITIES>                                            0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                     344,000  
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0<F1>  
<INVENTORY>                                       211,000  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,366,000  
<PP&E>                                          4,368,000<F2>  
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  6,242,000  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,259,000  
<BONDS>                                         1,479,000<F3>  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0  
<PREFERRED>                                             0  
<COMMON>                                           63,000  
<OTHER-SE>                                      3,441,000  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    6,242,000  
<SALES>                                           601,000  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2,473,000  
<CGS>                                             640,000  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,721,000  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 53,000  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (256,000) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (256,000) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0  
<CHANGES>                                               0  
<NET-INCOME>                                     (256,000) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.04) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.04) 
                                           

<FN>
<F1>  Notes and accounts receivable - trade are reported net of allowances for
      doubtful accounts in the Balance Sheet.

<F2>  Property, plant, and equipment are reported net of accumulated
      depreciation in the Balance Sheet.

<F3>  Excludes current portion.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,253,015               1,253,015
<SECURITIES>                                 3,500,018               3,500,018
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,376,462               2,376,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                   219,000                 219,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,355,377               5,355,377
<PP&E>                                       2,960,053               2,960,053
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,378,692               1,378,692
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,749,302              18,749,302
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,282,994               5,282,994
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                    13,651,139              13,651,139
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,708,514)             (1,708,514)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,749,302              18,749,302
<SALES>                                      2,844,723               8,288,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,844,723               8,288,724
<CGS>                                        1,469,040               4,098,730
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,177,124               8,876,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (71,106)               (245,303)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             100,803                 279,878
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (362,098)               (622,714)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,000               (148,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (371,098)               (474,714)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (371,098)               (474,714)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)                   (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)                   (.09)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

         Certification of Chief Executive Officer of FirstBank NW Corp.
     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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of FirstBank NW
Corp. ("the Company") for the year ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Clyde
E. Conklin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to
19 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         o        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
                  13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
                  amended, and

         o        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the Company's financial condition and
                  results of operations.


/s/ CLYDE E. CONKLIN
-----------------------------------------
Clyde E. Conklin, Chief Executive Officer

Dated: May 30, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7468

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL JAMES RHOAD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CR-91-490-A, CA-95-1008-AM)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael James Rhoad, Appellant Pro Se. Nash Whitney Schott, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Rhoad, Nos.

CR-91-490-A; CA-95-1008-AM (E.D. Va. June 20, 1996). Because this

appeal presents no complex issues, we deny Appellant's motion for

appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Freddie Lee WISNER, Sr. v. PDQ CONSTRUCTION CO. and City of Shreveport.

No. 2010-C-2553.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 14, 2011.

In re Wisner Sr., Freddie Lee; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, Office of Workers’ Compensation, District 1W, No. *8910607458; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 43,543-WCA.

Not considered, not timely filed.
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Section 1350



In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on
Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”) by Therapix Biosciences Ltd. (the "Company"),
the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



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



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







|Date: May 1, 2017 | /s/ Guy Goldin                
|----------------- | ------------------------------
|                  | Name: Guy Goldin              
|                  | Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Isaiah DOYLE.

No. 2011-KK-597.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 23, 2011.

*949WRIT GRANTED; STAY LIFTED*

hThe court of appeal correctly ruled that defendant may introduce evidence of mental retardation, defect, and/or diminished capacity at the guilt stage of trial as part of the circumstances surrounding the making of a confession for jurors to consider in determining the weight or probative value given the statement. La.C.Cr.P. art. 708(G); *see Crane v. Kentucky,*476 U.S. 683, 689, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 2146, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986)(“[R]egardless of whether the defendant marshaled the same evidence earlier in support of an unsuccessful motion to suppress, and entirely independent of any question of voluntariness, a defendant’s case may stand or fall on his ability to convince the jury that the manner in which the confession was obtained casts doubts on its credibility.”).

However, the court of appeal erred in requiring the trial court to give the jury a limiting instruction that it is not to consider this evidence as having any bearing on the defendant’s mental capacity at the time of the offense. Defendant has entered a dual plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity and may |2present evidence that he is mentally retarded so as to attempt to establish as a result of a mental disease or defect he was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the time of the offense. LSA-R.S.14:14; *see State v. Delpit,*341 So.2d 876, 877 (La.1977)(reversing conviction for armed robbery on grounds that trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to change his plea from not guilty to a dual insanity plea on the basis of evidence that he was classified as borderline mentally retarded and that his low mentality impaired his ability to make rational everyday decisions “and to determine ‘right or wrong’ in certain situations”); *cf. State v. Brown,*414 So.2d 689, 695 (La.1982)(testimony offered by the defendant at trial in connection with his dual insanity plea “established to a certainty” that he was mildly retarded but failed to carry his burden by a preponderance of the evidence that he was unable to distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the offense). The provisions of La. C.Cr.P. art. 905.5.1, governing the determination of mental retardation during the sentencing phase of a capital trial, relate solely to the question of whether, assuming that he was sane at the time of the offense and therefore morally culpable for his act as determined by a jury during the guilt phase, a defendant is nevertheless exempt from capital punishment because he is mentally retarded. *Atkins v. Virginia,*536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002).

JOHNSON, J., concurs in the result.

*

 Kimball, C.J. not participating in the decision.