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

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ira
Fils, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Habit Restaurants, Inc. (the registrant);

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of 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: March 11, 2015



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ira Fils                                
|Ira Fils                                    
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary       
|(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
#### ROMAN DRAZNIOWSKY v. NINA DRAZNIOWSKY.

February 27, 1987.

Cross-petition for certification denied.
# Michoud Celebrates a Tenant Success

Blade Dynamics, a tenant at the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, shipped it's first production article, a large blade designed for use on a 2MW land-based wind turbine.

Read More

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/michoud-celebrates-tenant-success/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareSize1041x694pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Mar 17, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JONATHAN ARCE

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 2223

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 21, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Se minole County

, Kenneth T. Lester, Jr. , Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and

Ailene S. Rogers, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Copeland v. State , 240 So. 3d 58, 59

- 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018);

Beckman v. State , 230 So. 3d 77 , 95

- 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)

.

ORFINGER, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE , JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7712

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MICHAEL WAYNE ISLEY, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., 

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00216-NCT-2; 1:07-cv-00547-NCT-PTS) 

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Michael Wayne Isley, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

Michael Wayne Isley seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) 

motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate 

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The 

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised 

Isley that the failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, 

Isley failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Isley 

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny 

his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

 

2 
3 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                           SI DIAMOND TECHNOLOGY, INC.
                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three Months ended June 30,          Six Months ended June 30,
                                                          ------------------------------      ------------------------------
                                                              2001             2000               2001              2000
                                                          ------------      ------------      ------------      ------------
<S>                                                       <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
Computation of loss per common share:

   Net loss applicable to common shares                   $ (1,269,882)     $ (1,604,104)     $ (2,577,445)     $ (3,458,790)

   Weighted average number of common shares                 63,648,286        55,778,265        62,924,823        55,610,804

   Net income (loss) per common share                     $      (0.02)     $      (0.03)     $      (0.04)     $      (0.06)


Computation of income (loss) per common
   share assuming full dilution**
</TABLE>

** No computation of diluted loss per common share is included for any period
because such computation results in an antidilutive loss per common share.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

Pursuant to therequirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), theundersigned, Gordon Link, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofTapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify, to hisknowledge, that:

(a)          the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended March 28, 2007 of the Company to which thiscertification is attached (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

(b)         the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 11, 2007
|            | /s/ GORDON  LINK                                         |
|------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| ** ** | **Gordon Link**                                          |
| ** ** | ***Senior Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer*** |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TapestryPharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or its staff uponrequest. This certification “accompanies” the Form 10-Q to which itrelates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, asamended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether madebefore or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.

----
ex_182573.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT TO MASTER EXCHANGE AGREEMENT 


 


This Amendment to the Master Exchange Agreement (this “Amendment”) is effective as of April 23, 2020.


 


WHEREAS, Net Element, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and ESOUSA Holdings, LLC, a New York limited liability company (the “Creditor”), are parties to that certain Master Exchange Agreement, dated as of March 27, 2020 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, Section 8(c) of the Agreement permits the Agreement to be amended by amendment in writing signed by the Company and by the Creditor.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the Company and the Creditor hereby agree that the Agreement shall be amended as follows:


 


1.     Recitals. All of the recitals contained herein are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.


 


2.     Amendment. The definition of the Existing Debt and the Debt Amount in second recital of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated by deleting “up to $2,000,000 in principal amount and unpaid interest of a promissory note of the Company or its direct or indirect subsidiaries” in the first sentence thereof and inserting in its place “up to $5,000,000 in principal amount and unpaid interest of one or more promissory notes of the Company or its direct or indirect subsidiaries.”


 


3.     Limited Effect. Except as expressly amended and modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall continue to be, and shall remain, in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


 


4.     Governing Law. This Amendment and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the internal laws of the State of New York.


 


5.     Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts. Each counterpart shall be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Amendment in Portable Document Format (PDF) or by facsimile transmission shall be as effective as delivery of a manually executed original counterpart of this Amendment.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Amendment have caused their names to be signed hereto by their respective officers thereunto duly authorized as of the date first set forth above.


 


 


	
			 

				
			NET ELEMENT, INC. 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			By: 

				
			/s/ Oleg Firer

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			Name:  Oleg Firer

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			Title:    Chief Executive Officer

				
			 

			



 


	
			 

				
			ESOUSA HOLDINGS, LLC 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			 

				
			 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			By: 

				
			/s/ Michael Wach

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			Name:  Michael Wachs 

				
			 

			
	
			 

				
			Title:    Managing Member
# MARTEK
BIOSCIENCES CORPORATION

# Amendment to
By-laws Effective April 25, 2002

Article
II, Section 1 of the Corporations By-laws is amended to read in its
entirety as follows:

SECTION 1.  Number and Term of Office.

The number of directors which shall constitute the whole board shall be eleven
members and shall be divided into three classes as specified or determined
pursuant to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation as in effect
from time to time. Directors need not be stockholders. Each director shall hold
office until his or her successor is elected and qualified, or until their
earlier death or resignation or removal in the manner hereinafter provided.

Whenever
the authorized number of directors is increased, a majority of the directors
then in office shall have the power to elect such new directors for the balance
of a term and until their successors are elected and qualified. Any decrease in
the authorized number of directors shall not become effective until the
expiration of the term of the directors then in office unless, at the time of
such decrease, there shall be vacancies on the board which are being eliminated
by the decrease.
# Sitemap

## August 23, 1997

- Home
- Sitemap
- 1997
- 08
- August 23, 1997

            - Cassini Processing and Launch Gallery
            - Cassini Processing and Launch Gallery
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certificate of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18.U.S.C. Section1350,as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

        In connection with the quarterly report ofNano-Proprietary, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc W. Eller, the Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

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

        2.     The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of theCompany as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.

 

| Date:       April 27, 2004 |   /s/ Marc W. EllerMarc W. Eller Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-41210

Summary Calendar

JOHN A. VALLAIR, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MITCH WOOD, Sheriff; UP HAYES, MD; UP VEGA, Officer, Law Library; UP

MINTOR, Lieutenant; UP DUBUIS, Captain; UP MILLS, Lieutenant,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CV-388

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Plaintiff-Appellant John A. Vallair, III, Texas prisoner # 1690304,

appeals the district court’s judgment that dismissed his 42 U.S.C. §1983

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous and for failure to state

a claim. Vallair urges that his complaint was wrongly dismissed and seeks to

have his claims reconsidered by the district court.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 17, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-41210 Document: 00512310837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2013
No. 12-41210

We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary.

Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal is

a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,

213-14 (2007). Within thirty days following entry of judgment on September

23, 2011, Vallair filed a “Petition to Appeal Order,” which was treated as a

timely notice of appeal and docketed in this court. Vallair subsequently

dismissed that appeal voluntarily, however, and did not file another notice of

appeal until October 22, 2012. It was untimely with respect to the underlying

judgment, and there were no other appealable orders in the case. Therefore,

the latter appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Bowles, 551

U.S. at 213-14.

2

 Case: 12-41210 Document: 00512310837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2013
#### Dunn *v.*Loder.—In error.

*Monday, November*30.

IT was necessary, under the statute of 1831, that a petition for the appointment of commissioners to assign dower, &c., should aver that, previously to its being filed, a demand for the assignment of the dower had been made on the parties interested, or show a sufficient reason for not making-such demand. R. C. 1831, p. 209.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 5, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RANDY WOOD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES SALYARDS,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

LOWELL HICKS; DALLAS WARD;

TOWN OF SOUTH FORK,

Defendants.

No. 09-1494

(D.C. No. 1:08-CV-01692-RPM)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. 

R. 42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-1494 Document: 01018341953 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 1
# STS-107 On-orbit View of Left Wing

Photo taken Flight Day One, Orbit Five, approximately 6 p.m. CST, of STS-107 left wing on orbit.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/sts-107-left-wing-in-orbit/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTags- NASA History
Image CreditCAIB Photo no photographer listed 2003Size756x548pxNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Aug 08, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Michele Ostovar								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
**M L** **P** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 1 - 0 4 85 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. CORY LEVI GOODMAN ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including June 5 , 20 2 3 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court May 4 2023

05/04/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0485
#### URBAN LEAGUE OF GREATER NEW BRUNSWICK v. MONROE TOWNSHIP.

May 4, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Janes *v.*Janes.

Monday, *May*27.

If a person marry, having a former husband or wife living, the second marriage is void.

ERROR to the *Madison*Circuit Court.

*H. Brown,*for the plaintiff.

*C. Fletcher*and *O. Butler,*for the defendant.

Blackford, *J.*

Zachariah *Janes*filed a petition against his wife for a divorce, on the ground that the defendant had a prior husband then living. A plea denying the charge was filed by the prosecuting attorney. The complainant obtained a decree.

The testimony in the record shows that the defendant was married in the state of *Maryland,*to *Elijah Boston,*about twenty-five years before the trial of the cause; that *Boston*afterwards abandoned her; that she and the complainant were married, in this state, four or five years ago ; and that her former husband is still living.

These facts show that the decree is correct. The first marriage being in force, the second one was an absolute nullity. 2 Kent’s Comm. 79. And further, the circumstance that the defendant had a former husband living at the time of her marriage to the complainant, is one of the causes for a divorce enumerated in the statute. Rev. Code,

'The length of time which has elapsed since tl first marriage, or since the defendant was aban first husband, cannot affect the case.

*Per Curiam.•*— The decree is affirmed with
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of The Habit Restaurants, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 30, 2014 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Ira Fils, Chief Financial Officer & Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| |  |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 11, 2015



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ira Fils                                
|Ira Fils                                    
|Chief Financial Officer & Secretary         
|(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)