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




CERTIFICATION




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




1.
            I
      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Blyth,
      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(s) 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; and




5.
            The
      registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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.




Date:
Decemeber 5, 2008




s/
Robert H. Barghaus


Robert H.
Barghaus


Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

BASEM K. SHLEWIET, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 269 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 17th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1046 BENJAMIN F. RUSSELL, By Joseph Michael Russell as his next friend, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL GENNARI, Ph.D.; ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees, and EVONNE FEI; DIXIE SHIELDS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:07-cv-00793-GBL-BRP) Submitted: June 18, 2008 Decided: July 15, 2008 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Michael Russell, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Olszewski, Armand B. Alacbay, HANCOCK, DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Fairfax,-2- Virginia; Anthony F. Shelley, Adam P. Feinberg, Jeffrey Hahn, MILLER & CHEVALIER, CHARTERED, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.-3- PER CURIAM: Joseph Michael Russell, on behalf of his son, Benjamin F. Russell, appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action alleging negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Russell v. Gennari , No. 1:07-cv-00793-GBL-BRP (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2007). 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. AFFIRMED
Exhibit 35.3



|     |                      |                              
|---- | -------------------- | -----------------------------
|LOGO |                      | Commercial Mortgage Servicing
|     | D1050-084, 8th Floor
|     | 401 South Tryon St. 
|     | Charlotte, NC 28202 
|     | 1-800-326-1334      

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2014, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital
I Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, Citibank, N.A., , as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Certificate
Registrar and Authenticating Agent and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-C17 (the Agreement).
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of
the Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period) , and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2017.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2094

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.; HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, “HP,”

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-03563-TLW)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Regina Hollins Lewis, Randi Lynn 

Roberts, GAFFNEYLEWIS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II, 

WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2094 Doc: 37 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas appeals the district court’s orders (1) accepting the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Assa’ad-Faltas’ summary judgment motion 

and grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Assa’ad-Faltas’ state law civil 

claims; and (2) denying Assa’ad-Faltas’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 

See Assa’ad-Faltas v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P., No. 3:18-cv-03563-TLW (D.S.C. filed 

June 1, 2021 & entered June 2, 2021; Sept. 28, 2021). 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2094 Doc: 37 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 9 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
RON THOMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 97-4066
v. (D. Utah) NUCOR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, doing business in Box Elder County, Utah,

Defendant - Appellee. (D.C. No. 96-CV-102-C)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , BALDOCK , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

The dispositive question on appeal in this case is whether the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff’s oral m otion to amend the complaint to1 Although the motion to amend was not made in writing or formalized in any way,

and although the district court made no express ruling on the oral motion to amend, we construe the motion as having been properly made and expressly denied so that we can consider the issue on appeal. -2- assert a claim for wrongful discharge on the basis that the employer allegedly demanded that the plaintiff act in violation of pub lic policy. 1 Upon careful review of the record and the briefs an d arguments of counsel, we conclude that the district court did not err. T he judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellee’s motion for sanctions on appeal is denied. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
585 A.2d 386

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT M. BELL.

October 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
CERTIFICATION UNDER
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Trico Marine Services, 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)) and internal
control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     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):
   Date: November 9, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Joe CompofeliceJoe CompofeliceChief Executive Officer
Order entered February 13, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01020

- CV

JERRY GRISAFFI, Appellant

V.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN HIGH BRANDS, INC.

F/K/A REPUBLIC OF TE XAS BRANDS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 17

- 15441



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s February 12, 2019 unopposed second motion for an

extension of time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to February 28,

2019 . We caution appellant that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NIMISH SHIRISH DAVE; ) No. 07-71415 JUI ROHIT PATEL, ) ) Agency Nos. A079-195-915 Petitioners, ) A079-195-916 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM * ) ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney ) General, ) ) Respondent. ) ) NIMISH SHIRISH DAVE; ) No. 07-72573 JUI ROHIT PATEL, ) ) Agency Nos. A079-195-915 Petitioners, ) A079-195-916 ) v. ) ) ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney ) General, ) ) Respondent. ) ) On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

# FILED
OCT 31 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Robert J. Timlin, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
1 While Patel filed a separate appeal, no separate arguments are made on her behalf. Thus, we treat her position here as derivative of Dave’s and will not refer to her separately. See 8 U.S.C. § 1153(d).
2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B).
3 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). 2 Submitted October 11, 2011 ** Pasadena, California Before: FERNANDEZ and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and TIMLIN, *** District Judge. Nimish Shirish Dave and Jui Rohit Patel, 1 citizens of Canada, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of their motion to reopen to consider an application for adjustment of status, 2 and their motion to reconsider that denial. 3 We deny the petitions. Dave asserts that the BIA erred when it determined that he had not made out a prima facie case for adjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(1), (2). We disagree. Dave failed to present su fficient evidence that he had an approved labor certification. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(5)(A). Absent that, Dave could not spell out a prima facie case for relief because he needed that in order to obtain an4 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3)(C).
5 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)(2)(A). 3 immigrant visa, 4 which he, in turn, needed to obtain adjustment of status. 5 The BIA did not abuse its discretion. See Edu v. Holder , 624 F.3d 1137, 1142 n.4 (9th Cir. 2010); Ghahremani v. Gonzales , 498 F.3d 993, 997 (9th Cir. 2007); see also INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S. Ct. 719, 725, 116 L. Ed. 2d 823 (1992). Petitions DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of CV Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                   |  |  |  |                         
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------
|Dated: May 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ DANIEL K. SPIEGELMAN
|                   |  |  |  | Daniel K. Spiegelman    
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25507]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF10-7-000]


Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

October 1, 2010.
    Take notice that on September 16, 2010, the Deputy Secretary of the 
Department of Energy, under the authority vested in the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission by Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, submitted Rate 
Order No. WAPA-150, extension of the Boulder Canyon Project electric 
service, for confirmation and final approval to be effective October 1, 
2010, up to September 30, 2015.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f292a3d2c20010306010a3c1a1f1f001d1b2f090a1d0c41080019"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="51171403121e3f3d383f34022421213e232511373423327f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 20, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25507 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


                         ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                 REGARDING INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REVIEW REPORT



The Board of Directors
Northfield Laboratories Inc.:




With respect to the registration statements on Form S-8 of Northfield
Laboratories Inc., we acknowledge our awareness of the incorporation by
reference therein of our report dated March 31, 1999 related to our review of
interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.


                                                  Very truly yours,

                                                  /s/ KPMG LLP
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  KPMG LLP

                                           
Chicago, Illinois
April 12, 1999
No. 15,084.

#### The State *v.*Dittmar.

Criminal *Law.*— Oppressive *Garnishment.*— Exemption *Laws.*— Sending *Claim Out of State to Evade.*— One who himself takes a claim out of this State with intent to deprive a debtor of the benefit of the exemption laws by instituting proceedings in garnishment in another State, “ sends ” the claim out of the State, within the meaning of section 2162, B. S. 1881, making such act an offence.

From the Dubois Circuit Court.

*389
      *L. T. Miohener,*Attorney General, *J. L. Bretz,*Prosecuting Attorney, and *J. H. Gillett,*for the State.

*C. L. Jewett,*for appellee.

Olds, J.

This is a prosecution under section 2162, R. S. 1881. The prosecution was commenced before a justice of the peace. There was an appeal to the circuit court, and on leave of court the defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and moved to quash the affidavit, which motion was sustained, to which ruling of the court the State excepts and appeals and assigns such ruling as error.

The affidavit charges that the defendant Dittmar on the 13th day of February, 1889, at said county of Dubois and State of Indiana, being then and there the owner of a certain demand on contract against him, the said Isaac A. Lockwood, amounting to the sum of $16.55, with intent, thereby to deprive the said Isaac A. Lockwood of his rights under the statutes of Indiana, on the subject of the exemption of property on proceedings in garnishment, did then and there unlawfully take upon his person said claim into the State of Kentucky for the purpose of collecting the same by proceedings in garnishment against the said Isaac A. Lockwood and against the Louisville, Evansville and St. Louis Railroad Company as garnishee defendant, etc.

The objection made to the affidavit is, that the allegation that the defendant “ did unlawfully take upon his person said claim into the State of Kentucky” does not charge a crime under section 2162 of the statute, which declares that whoever sends or causes to be sent out of the State of Indiana any claim for debt to be collected by proceedings in attachment, garnishment, etc., shall upon conviction thereof be fined, etc. This pi’esents the same question as was presented and decided in the case of *State*v. *Dittmar, ante,*p. 54. Upon the authority of that case we hold that the affidavit is sufficient, and the court erred in sustaining the motion to quash.

*390Filed Oct. 19, 1889.

J udgment reversed, at the costs of the appellee, with instructions to overrule the motion to quash.
584 A.2d 221

#### ESTHER SCHATZ v. RUTH SWERSKY AND DANIEL SCHATZ AND IRVING SCHATZ, ETC.

May 21, 1990.

Cross-petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of MakeMusic, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Alan G. Shuler, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
      pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





May
      2,
      2006




/s/
                Alan G. Shuler
              Chief
                Financial Officer






21
584 A.2d 232

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAYMOND E. COLLINS.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.