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

         I, Patrick Rodgers, Chief Financial Officer of Empire Financial Holding
Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Empire Financial Holding
Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

   a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such 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 annual 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 and based on such evaluation;

   c) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

   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: April 13, 2004

 /s/ Patrick Rodgers
 -------------------
 Patrick Rodgers, Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

The Board of Directors

 

Aether Systems, Inc.:

 

We consent to incorporation byreference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-91369, 333-52220 and333-52222) on Form S-8 and the registration statements (Nos. 333-48898,333-56154, 333-64264, and 333-74428) on Form S-3 of Aether Systems, Inc. of ourreports dated March 4, 2004 relating to the consolidated balance sheets ofAether Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2003, and therelated consolidated statements of operations and other comprehensive loss,stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2003, and the related schedule, which report appearsin the December 31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of Aether Systems, Inc.

 

Our report dated March 4, 2004contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company changed itsmethod for accounting for derivatives with the adoption of SFAS No. 133,“Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities” in 2001, andchanged its method for accounting for intangible assets with the adoption ofSFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets” in 2002, and changed itsmethod for accounting for gains from the early extinguishment of debt with theadoption of SFAS No. 145, “Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44, and 64,Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13, and Technical Corrections.”

 

 

*McLean, Virginia*

*March 15, 2004*

 

1

----
#### Ruth F. WRIGHT (Formerly Mrs. Ruth F. Rimmer), Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 78-1224.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 25, 1980.

A. Benjamin Strand, Jr., Strand & Goddard, Dandridge, Tenn., for petitioner-appellant.

M. Carr Ferguson, Helen A. Buckley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gilbert E. Andrews, Richard Perkins, Ronald A. Dweck, Tax Div., U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Stuart E. Seigel, Chief Counsel, I. R. S., Washington, D. C., for respondent-appellee.

ORDER

Before EDWARDS, Chief Judge, and LIVELY and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.

The taxpayer appeals from a decision of the Tax Court upholding a deficiency assessment based on a finding that payments received by the taxpayer as result of a final divorce decree were taxable as periodic payments of alimony rather than installment payments of a property division. Upon consideration of the briefs and oral arguments of counsel together with the record on appeal, the court concludes that the decision of the Tax Court is correct.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed for the reasons set forth in the memorandum findings of fact and opinion of the United States Tax Court according to which decision was entered on April 3, 1978.
**Exhibit 23.2****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-30356, 333-67436, 333-113781, 333-88408, 333-104184, 333-67650, 333-110388) of our report datedMarch 7, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Quovadx, Inc. as of December 31,2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flowsfor each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2005 included in the Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.     /s/ Ernst & Young LLPDenver, Colorado
Exhibit 10.1


 


 


OTC:NXNN AGREEMENT TO RESCIND CONTRACT OF SALE


 


 


This Agreement to Rescind Contract of Sale (the
“Agreement”) is a made and effective 4/8/2021


 


 


		BETWEEN:	Rosellini Scientific Holdings, LLC (the "Seller"), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of  Nevis with
its head office located at:



 


10 Jews Street, Ramsbury Site, Charlestown,
Nevis


 


 


		AND:	Mina Mar Corporation (the "Purchaser"), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida
with its head office located at:



 


500 S Australian Ave #600 West Palm Beach
FL


 


 


TERMS


 





 


		1.	The contract of sale of control block of stock described as: all Classes of Preferred Stock (The
                                                                             Control Block) as part of the resignation as per the share purchase agreement dated Thursday, October 22, 2020. No common shares
                                                                             were exchanged in the transaction.



 


OTC:NXNN Nexeon Medsystems, Inc.


 


		2.	Seller waives and releases all right and claim against purchaser,
and purchaser waives and releases all right against seller and all right, title, and interest in the described corporation.



 


Departure of Directors or Certain Officers.


 


		3.	In connection with this rescission agreement On April 8, 2021,
Miro Zecevic resigned from his position as a member of the Board of Directors of Nexeon Medsystems Inc (the “Company”) effective
immediately.



 

 


 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of
the date first above written.


 


Executed in duplicate at West Palm Beach FL April 8 2021


 


 


 





	SELLER	 	PURCHASER
	 	 	 
	/s/ William Rosellini                     	 	/s/ Miro Zecevic                     
	William Rosellini	 	Miro Zecevic, President Mina Mar Corporation
	President Rosellini Scientific Holdings, LLC
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Fresh Choice, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 23, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David E. Pertl, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (“Section 906”), that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m); and

 

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

 
| April 29,  2003 |                                               |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|            | /s/ David E.  Pertl                                |   |
|            | David E.  Pertl                                    |
|            | Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
Exhibit 10.55

Strictly private and confidential

To be opened by addressee only

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

December 17,
2010

Shaun Lynn

Dear Shaun:

Reference is made to your partnership interests in BGC Holdings, L.P. (BGC Holdings or the Partnership). Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement of Limited Partnership of BGC Holdings, amended and restated as of March 31, 2008 (as further amended from time to time, the Partnership
Agreement).

You acknowledge and agree that, as soon as practicable, the Partnership shall, with respect to 754,770 Founding Partner
Units held by you as of December 15, 2010 and otherwise exchangeable pro-rata upon a schedule of April 1 of 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively (the Eligible FPUs), cause such Eligible FPUs to become exchangeable into shares of
BGC Partners, Inc. Class A Common Stock (BGC Shares), subject to the terms and conditions of the Partnership Agreement. In addition, the Partnership shall redeem 350,000 of the Eligible FPUs for a cash payment determined based upon
the average closing price of BGC Shares for the ten business days immediately following December 15, 2010, less a 2% commission fee (the Payment). In connection with the exchangeability acceleration and redemption stated above, the
total number of FPUs you currently hold shall be reduced from 2,015,898 to 1,665,898 FPUs, of which 911,129 will be exchangeable. Such Payment shall be less all applicable taxes, deductions, and withholdings, and payable to you as soon as
practicable after such redemption.

You agree to execute any and all documents as required by the Partnership in connection with executing the
foregoing. This letter shall be governed by the terms and conditions of, as well as the same venue and choice of law provisions, governing the Partnership Agreement.

This letter agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding of each of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and neither party is relying upon any promises,
representations or inducements, written, oral or otherwise, which are not set forth in this letter agreement.

This letter agreement may only
be treated as an offer capable of acceptance if executed by Howard W. Lutnick on behalf of the General Partner. It may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which shall constitute one agreement.
Each such counterpart signature may be delivered via telecopier or email.

Sincerely,



BGC HOLDINGS, L.P.By:

/S/    HOWARD W.
LUTNICKName: Howard W. Lutnick
Title: Chairman and CEO


Accepted and Agreed:

PARTICIPANT



|           |  |                  
|---------- |  | -----------------
|          
|           | 
|Signature: |  | /S/    SHAUN
LYNN
|           |  | Shaun Lynn       



1
#### Jason Johnathan LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John R. LARKIN; Janet Napolitano, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-17006.

D.C. No. CV-02-00241-WDB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

*712Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument and denies Lewis’s request for oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Arizona state prisoner Jason Johnathan Lewis appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, which challenges his conviction and life sentence for first-degree murder and kidnaping. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a). Reviewing de novo, *Alvarado v. Hill,*252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001), we affirm.

Lewis contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because she incorrectly believed that under Arizona law, the state was required to disprove Lewis’s defense of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. *See*Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 13-205(A) (providing that the burden is on the defendant to prove self-defense by a preponderance). The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected this claim, reasoning that although counsel’s performance was deficient, Lewis had not shown prejudice. This state court decision was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); *Early v. Packer,*537 U.S. 3, 123 S.Ct. 362, 365-66, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002) (per curiam); *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (holding that ineffective assistance of counsel occurs when there is deficient performance and prejudice, which “is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different”). Thus, the district court properly denied Lewis’s petition.1

AFFIRMED.

**

 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file excerpts of record is denied as unnecessary. *See*9th Cir. R. 24-1.
## This page has permanently moved.

### If redirect does not occur in 5 seconds, click the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Investigation.html?#id=308
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 10.26(b)



                                List of Exhibits

                                     to the

                          Underwriters Credit Agreement




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit Number            Description
--------------            -----------



<S>                       <C>
         A                Form of Continuing Letter of Credit Agreement



         B                Form of Transfer Supplement



         C                Contents of Opinions of Counsel



         D                Form of Compliance Certificate



         E                List of Existing Letters of Credit



         F                Letter of Credit Application



         G                Form of Account Party Accession Instrument



         H-1              Form of Note of Underwriters Re Group, Inc.



         H-2              Form of Note of Underwriters Reinsurance Company



         H-3              Form of Note of Venton Underwriting Limited



       2.01(b)            Form of Evergreen Provision



       3.03               Approvals and Consents



       3.04               Governmental Consents



       3.05               Financial Statements



       3.07               Taxes



       3.09               Insurance Licenses



       3.13               Environmental Laws



       3.16               Capitalization



       3.17               ERISA
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   2
<TABLE>
<S>                       <C>
       3.23               Ownership of Properties



       3.24               Indebtedness



       6.14               Investments



       6.16               Liens

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1298

REGINALD D. EVANS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; EXEL INC,

 Defendants - Appellees.

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

Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:15-cv-04953-RMG-SVH)

Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: July 31, 2017

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald D. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald D. Evans appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice 

his claims against the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) but granting leave to 

amend his complaint to add a claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

against Exel, Inc. After the district court filed its order, the court accepted Evans’ 

amended complaint. “[W]e have an independent obligation to verify the existence of 

appellate jurisdiction” and may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders. Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015) 

(internal quotation marks omitted); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). “Ordinarily, a 

district court order is not final until it has resolved all claims as to all parties.” Porter, 

803 F.3d at 696 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Regardless of the label given a 

district court decision, if it appears from the record that the district court has not 

adjudicated all of the issues in a case, then there is no final order.” Id. 

Although the district court dismissed all claims against the SSA, it allowed Evans 

to amend his complaint to add a new claim against a new defendant, and the record 

reflects that Evans did in fact file such an amended complaint. Because Evans still has a 

viable claim in this ongoing matter, the district court did not issue “a final decision,” and 

we lack jurisdiction over Evans’ appeal. Id. at 699.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand to the 

district court. We express no view on the ultimate disposition of Evans’ remaining claim. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-51218

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus 

ARIEL RODRIGUEZ-ARMENDARIZ, also known as Mario Rodriguez,

also known as Joseph Armando Ramirez, also known as Iran 

Martinez-Collaso, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

 

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-03-CR-66-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Ariel Rodriguez-Armendariz

has moved for leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the brief, Rodriguez’s response, and

the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135163 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

BEVERLY GALLIHER, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 135163 

 COA: 267185 

Oakland CC: 04-061389-NO 

TRINITY HEALTH - MICHIGAN, d/b/a ST.

JOSEPH MERCY OAKLAND, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 2, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court. 

MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows: 

Because I cannot imagine any more “open and obvious” condition than a pothole 

in a driveway during daylight hours, I would reverse the Court of Appeals judgment and 

remand for entry of an order granting summary disposition to defendant. “[P]otholes in 

pavement are an ‘everyday occurrence’ that ordinarily should be observed by a 

reasonably prudent person.” Lugo v Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich 512, 523 (2001). 

It is hard to know whether the majority is more persuaded here by the argument: 

(a) that a shadow cast by a hospital on a pothole constitutes a “special aspect,” thus 

removing the pothole from the realm of the “open and obvious”; (b) that plaintiff’s 

testimony that she fell during “dark evening hours” should be accorded credit despite the 

fact that 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm on the afternoon of March 1, 2003, the time of the accident, 

was a daylight hour; (c) that plaintiff’s simultaneous arguments that there were sunny 

conditions at the time of her accident, thereby creating a shadow over the pothole, and 

that there were “overcast” conditions at the time of the accident with “heavy, dense 

clouds and fog and scattered snow showers,” thereby obscuring the pothole, should be 

accepted as legitimate alternative arguments; or (d) that plaintiff’s assertion that she “did 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

not discover the condition” is somehow relevant to this Court’s analysis of premises 

liability cases. 

That any of these arguments have been found to be persuasive by this Court 

evidences why Lugo has become an increasingly “dead letter,” to be replaced by no 

coherent alternative rule of law. 

t0205 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 8, 2008 

 Clerk