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

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of Blyth, Inc., certify that:

1.                  I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Blyth, Inc.;

2.                  Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

4.                 The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure 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.                 The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent 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: June 9,2006
|                                             |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ Robert H.  Barghaus                     |   |
| Robert H.  Barghaus                         |   |
| Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                        |   |

 

----
# S&S Calculator
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7395 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7395

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow delivery 
of medical supplies by unmanned aerial systems, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 21, 2018

 Mr. Meadows introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the 
    Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Natural 
 Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow delivery 
of medical supplies by unmanned aerial systems, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE MEDICAL POTENTIAL OF UNMANNED 
              AERIAL SYSTEMS.

    It is the sense of Congress that unmanned aerial systems have the 
potential to improve medical care for rural populations and for 
patients in acute situations in need of immediate care and without 
immediate access to care providers, and that such technologies should 
be utilized where practicable.

SEC. 2. CONFIRMATION OF MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT ELIGIBILITY.

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not prohibit any 
program administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
or the Indian Health Service from reimbursing hospitals or other 
medical providers for the use of unmanned aerial systems for delivery 
of medical supplies to hospitals, ambulances, or directly to sites of 
medical emergencies occurring away from hospitals and ambulances.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND FLIGHT OF UNMANNED AERIAL 
              SYSTEMS BEYOND LINE OF SIGHT FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES.

    The Federal Aviation Administration, in issuing rulemaking for 
unmanned aerial system delivery as directed by section 44808 of title 
49, United States Code, shall not prohibit the operation of unmanned 
aerial systems for medical purposes beyond the line of sight, 
consistent with other rules and regulations made applicable to all 
unmanned aerial systems in such rulemaking.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
BRET MAYO, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3142 ) KERRY MAYO o/b/o N.G.M., ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed December 7, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hendry County; James D. Sloan, Judge. Fred R. Kahle of The Kahle Law Firm, P.A., Labelle, for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee.

BLACK, Judge.

Bret Mayo appeals the order entered in circuit court Case No. 17-DR-179 finding him in indirect criminal contempt for violating the terms of an injunction. For the- 2 -

reasons expressed in this court's decision in Mayo v. Mayo, No. 2D17-3140 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 7, 2018), we reverse. 1

Reversed.

CASANUEVA and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.

1 It is noted that Kerry Mayo, the petitioner, did not initiate a contempt proceeding in circuit court Case No. 17-DR-179. Rather, Ms. Mayo only filed a petition in the related circuit court case, Case No. 17-DR-180. Nonetheless, the court ordered Mayo to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating the injunctions entered in Case No. 17-DR-179 and Case No. 17-DR-180. The court and the parties proceeded with the evidentiary hearing as to both circuit court cases, and following the hearing the court entered contempt orders in both circuit court cases. Because this deficiency was not raised by Mayo on appeal, it cannot serve as a basis for this court's reversal.
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 10.30

TO:       Board of Directors RF Monolithics, Inc.

FROM:     Sam Densmore

DATE:     November 11, 1999

RE:       Resignation from Position of Director, President and Chief Executive
          Office and Continuation of Employee Status

     By this Memorandum, I hereby offer to resign from my current positions of
Director, President and Chief Executive Officer, effective immediately, in
exchange for RFM's agreement to the following terms, consistent with the general
framework set forth in RFM's agreement with Gary A. Anderson dated August 13,
1996 (attached), with the following modification to those paragraphs indicated
below :

     1.   My employment status will continue for nine (9) months from
          November 11, 1999, as provided below. RFM will continue to pay my
          salary as due, in the gross amount of $18,750.00 per month, reported
          on a W-2, and will also continue to provide full benefits, during this
          nine-month period.

     2.   I will serve as a consultant to RFM for an additional nine (9) months,
          without reduction in gross monthly compensation. My benefits will
          continue to the extent permissible under the applicable benefit plans,
          or pursuant to federal COBRA law if I so elect.

     3.   My duties during the next eighteen (18) months shall be those
          reasonable requested or assigned by the Company's new CEO, David Kirk,
          provided that the Company acknowledges that it will make reasonable
          attempts to accommodate my schedule to permit my pursuit of consulting
          opportunities. If I accept "regular and on-going employment" with a
          different employer, then my status with RFM will also continue, but my
          compensation from RFM will be reduced from $18,750.00 per month to
          $1.00 per month for the balance of the eighteen month total term.

     4.   I agree to the terms of non-competition and non-solicitation for the
          eighteen-month period described above, plus one year thereafter.

     5.   At the Company's option (and with notice to me), amounts for my health
          care benefits may be deducted from my salary or I will pay the same
          directly.

     6.   During the period of the next eighteen months, my stock options and
          other equity interest will be governed by the terms of the applicable
          Plan.

     7.   Not applicable.

     8.   Not applicable.

     9.   Not applicable.
<PAGE>

     The parties agree to the foregoing terms. The complete agreement between
the parties regarding this matter shall be set forth in a subsequent
comprehensive agreement.


     By: /s/ Sam L. Densmore

     Date: 11/11/99


     By: /s/ Michael Bernique

         Chairman of the Board

         Position

     Date: 11/11/99
J. Having reviewed this petition and the supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Parrakuirre

cc: Chief Judge, The Ninth Judicial District Court Hon. Charles M. McGee, Senior Judge Law Office of Karen L. Winters Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg Douglas County Clerk

'We deny as moot petitioner's motion for a stay of the district court's order.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         392,849
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  585,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                    54,251
<INVENTORY>                                  1,730,296
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,965,623
<PP&E>                                       2,594,787
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,088,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,263,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,237,285
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,452,497
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,263,138
<SALES>                                      1,254,050
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,673,130
<CGS>                                          332,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,872,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               197,333
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,058
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (729,089)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (729,089)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (729,089)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
#### ESTATE OF Thomas MCLOONE; Dennis Lane, personal representative Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-35559.

D.C. No. CV-98-5437-FDB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 6, 2000.

Decided Jan. 12, 2001.

Before B. FLETCHER, FISHER, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior District Judge for the Northern District of Cali*716fornia, sitting by designation.

*716MEMORANDUM **

The Estate of Thomas McLoone (“the Estate”) brought this action against defendant Intel Corp. (“Intel”) alleging that Intel had not informed the Estate of its right to McLoone’s stock options until the period to exercise the options had expired, despite the repeated inquiries of the Estate administrator about the scope of the benefits to which the Estate was entitled. The Estate contends that Intel violated its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001*et seq.*Intel responds that it had no such duty with respect to the stock options because the options were not part of an ERISA plan. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. Finding plaintiffs amended complaint had not alleged any common law claims, the court dismissed the action in its entirety.

The stock options were not part of an ERISA plan. Intel’s plan under which the stock options were given to McLoone does not meet the statutory definition of either an employee welfare benefit plan or an employee pension benefit plan. *See*29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(1), 1002(2)(A). Even though Intel’s compensation handbook unfortunately might give lay employees the impression that all benefits are covered by ERISA, the impression conveyed to laypersons does not establish whether ERISA coverage exists when the benefit does not even arguably fall within the purview of ERISA.

The district court’s finding that the Estate had failed to allege any common law claims in its amended complaint functioned as a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The dismissal without notice and without leave to amend was improper. Under the Federal Rules’ liberal notice pleading standards, the complaint may have been sufficient to plead common law claims, and in any event, the Estate should have been given the opportunity to amend the complaint. *See AlliedSignal, Inc. v. City of Phoenix,*182 F.3d 692, 696 (9th Cir.1999); *Yamaguchi v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force,*109 F.3d 1475, 1480-81 (9th Cir.1997).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
585 A.2d 376

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT E. STERN.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7088

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RICHARD ALLEN WITCHER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. ( 2:15

- cr - 00143

- RBS

- RJK

- 1 ; 2:17

- cv - 00325

- RBS )

Submitted : December 19, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Richard Allen Witcher , Appellant Pro Se. Leslie Williams Fisher , U NITED S TATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C

. ; Elizabeth Marie Yusi , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Richard Allen Witcher seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or ju dge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 de nies 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 Mil ler

- 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 motion states a d ebatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Witcher has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss t he appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6477

CHRISTOPHER J. MOLTZ, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-02-397-2) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher J. Moltz, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Our review of the record reveals that Moltz was convicted of murder, robbery, and cons piracy to commit robbery, not as an accessory after the fact of murder, as stated in the district court’s opinion. 2 PER CURIAM: Christopher J. Moltz seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). * We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moltz has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                                Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

                                Three and Six Months Ended December 31, 1996 and 1995

                                   (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)


                                                                 Three months ended             Six months ended
                                                                     December 31,                  December 31,
                                                             -------------------------     -------------------------
                                                                 1996           1995           1996           1995
                                                             ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                                                          <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>

Net Income .............................................     $    2,398     $    1,916     $    1,629     $    3,564
                                                             ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========


Number of shares outstanding
  Weighted average shares issued .......................      5,950,000      5,950,000      5,950,000      5,950,000
  Less: Weighted average shares held in treasury .......      1,101,255        538,133      1,105,222        431,644
  Less: Average shares held by the ESOP ................        476,000        476,000        476,000        476,000
  Plus: ESOP shares released or committed to be
             released during the fiscal year ...........         89,399         51,822         84,533         47,294
  Plus: Average common stock equivalents - primary .....        251,433        143,597        249,850        138,845
                                                             ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
        Average primary shares .........................      4,713,577      5,131,286      4,703,161      5,228,495

  Plus: Average common stock equivalents - fully diluted          7,227          2,328          7,078          7,750
                                                             ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
        Average fully diluted shares ...................      4,720,804      5,133,614      4,710,239      5,236,245
                                                             ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

Earnings per common share
        Primary ........................................     $     0.51     $     0.37     $     0.35     $     0.68
                                                             ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
        Fully diluted ..................................     $     0.51     $     0.37     $     0.35     $     0.68
                                                             ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
</TABLE>