alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14a/ 15d-14a
I, Peter L. Buzy, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Martek BiosciencesCorporation;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the periods covered by this quarterlyreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the periods in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluations; and  c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially 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 onour most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: September 14, 2004
/s/ Peter L. Buzy
Peter L. Buzy
#### ELIZABETH DEBREZNY v. DANIEL JEDINY.

September 5, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
No. 87-1079.

#### Palumbo *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: June 23, 2016 522105

________________________________ In the Matter of TERRY ANDERSON, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: May 3, 2016 Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________ Terry Anderson, Ogdensburg, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with fighting, engaging in violent conduct, lying and failing to promptly report an injury after a confidential source accused petitioner of having been involved in a fight with another inmate. At a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to promptly report an injury and otherwise pleaded not guilty. At the conclusion of the hearing, petitioner was found guilty as charged, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.-2- 522105

Initially, because petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge of failing to promptly report an injury, he is precluded from challenging the evidence supporting that part of the determination finding him guilty of this charge (see Matter of Rodriguez v Fischer, ___ AD3d ___, ___, 28 NYS3d 636, 636 [2016]; Matter of Abrahams v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2015]). With respect to the remaining three charges, the Attorney General concedes, and we agree, that substantial evidence does not support petitioner's guilt of these charges, as the Hearing Officer failed to independently assess the reliability of the confidential information (see Matter of Bridge v Annucci, 132 AD3d 1197, 1197-1198 [2015]; Matter of Kim v Annucci, 128 AD3d 1196, 1197 [2015]). Accordingly, the finding of guilt with respect to the charges of fighting, engaging in violent conduct and lying must be annulled. However, inasmuch as petitioner has served the penalty and no loss of good time was imposed, the matter need not be remitted for a redetermination of the penalty (see Matter of Mohamed v Prack, 137 AD3d 1402, 1402 [2016]; Matter of Kim v Annucci, 128 AD3d at 1198). Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of fighting, engaging in violent conduct and lying; petition granted to that extent and respondent is directed to expunge all references to these charges from petitioner's institutional record; and, as so modified, confirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
#### GAIL OKONIEWSKI v. ROBERT F. ZAMPOLIN.

May 22, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

J.C.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 476 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of May, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 3.4

AMENDMENT TO THE  AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS  OF  WATER PIK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

This Amendment to the Amended and Restated Bylaws of Water Pik Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), is made pursuant to
Article III, Sections 2 and 3, and Article VIII of the Corporation's Amended and Restated Bylaws by resolution of the Board of Directors of the Corporation.

1.     Article III,
Section 2, of the Amended and Restated Bylaws shall be replaced in its entirety by the following:



2.     Article III,
Section 3, of the Amended and Restated Bylaws shall be replaced in its entirety by the following:



---





3.     Article III,
Section 11, of the Amended and Restated bylaws is hereby repealed and deleted in its entirety and references to such section contained
elsewhere in the Amended and Restated Bylaws shall be disregarded.

The
undersigned, being the duly authorized and appointed Secretary of the Corporation, hereby certifies that the foregoing Amendment to the Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Corporation
was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation pursuant to unanimous written consent on November 29, 2005.

| |  | /s/RICHARD D. TIPTONRichard D. Tipton, Secretary
| |  | ------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID LAMBERT, JR.

September 24, 1984.

Certification is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration in light of *State v. Wright,*97 *N.J.*113 (1984).

Jurisdiction is not retained.
Exhibit 32



Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Harris & Harris Group, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31,
2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Douglas W. Jamison, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Patricia N. Egan, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his/her
knowledge:



(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.











|/s/ Douglas W. Jamison |                        
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|Name:                  | Douglas W. Jamison     
|Title:                 | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                  | May 9, 2016            
|                       |                        
|/s/ Patricia N. Egan   |                        
|Name:                  | Patricia N. Egan       
|Title:                 | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                  | May 9, 2016            





2
#### Joseph B. Zinn, Respondent-Appellant, v Jefferson Towers, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Kay Waterproofing Corp., Respondent, and City Scaffolding Corp., Appellant-Respondent.

[789 NYS2d 7]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered December 22, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant City Scaffolding’s motion for summary judgment, and precluded plaintiff from qualifying as an expert witness at trial and from referring in his .amended bill of particulars to certain legislative authority and provisions of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of permitting plaintiff to testify as an expert witness, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Plaintiff shall serve notice pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) within 20 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.

Plaintiff slipped on a white substance near a sidewalk shed installed by defendant City Scaffolding to protect the area from falling objects while work was being performed by defendant *399Kay Waterproofing Corp. Because issues of fact exist with respect to whether the sidewalk shed was properly erected and maintained, plaintiff is not required to establish contractual privity with City Scaffolding in order to impose liability for his injuries *(Dickert v City of New York,*268 AD2d 343 [2000]). One who assumes a contractual obligation to maintain a safe condition may be answerable in damages for liability resulting from injuries sustained by a third party because of the obligor’s breach *(Palka v Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp.,*83 NY2d 579 [1994]; *see also Sommer v Federal Signal Corp.,*79 NY2d 540 [1992]).

Plaintiff, a licensed professional civil engineer, who was previously chief engineer for the City of New York, was improperly disqualified from testifying as an expert on his own behalf. We have noted that circumstances exist where “parties with firsthand knowledge have been permitted and even compelled to render expert testimony” *(Hirschfeld v IC Sec.,*132 AD2d 332, 337 [1987], *lv dismissed*72 NY2d 841 [1988]) and, therefore, that an expert witness should not be disqualified merely because of a personal interest in the event *(id.*at 337-338, citing CPLR 4512). Thus, plaintiff should be permitted to give testimony to the extent he is qualified by his expertise *(see Kramnicz v First Natl. Bank,*32 AD2d 1009, 1010 [1969]).

Finally, we agree that plaintiff is precluded from asserting violations of the Administrative Code of the City of New York by previous Supreme Court orders, from which no appeal was taken *(see e.g. Rachmani Corp. v 9 E. 96th St. Apt. Corp.,*211 AD2d 262, 269 [1995] [law of the case]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
#### In the Matter of DSMG Corp., Respondent, v State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 891]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated September 30, 2002, which affirmed an order of the Rent Administrator dated July 1, 2002, awarding the tenant a refund for rent overcharges, the State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal appeals, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (M. Carson, J), dated July 9, 2003, which, upon, in effect, vacating the order of the Rent Administrator dated July 1, 2002, and the determination of the State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal dated September 30, 2002, referred the matter back to the State of New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal for reconsideration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant’s contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### Ritchey *v.*The State.

*Monday, June*17.

An indictment for arson should allege the value of the property destroyed.

It should also allege that the property burned or sot on fire belonged to the person in actual possession in his own right.

ERROR to the *Perry*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

— This was a prosecution for arson. The indictment contains two counts. One count charges the defendant, Ritchey, with burning the store-house of the American Canal Coal Company; in the other count, the store-house is alleged to belong to *Thomas*Boyd, and to be occupied by him. Neither count states the value of the store-house. Plea, not guilty. Verdict of guilty, and sentence accordingly. A motion in arrest of judgment was overruled, as was also a motion for a new trial.

*169
      *C. I.*Battell, *C.*Fletcher, and *O.*Butler, for the plaintiff.

*A. A. Hammond*and *S.*Major, for the state.

The objection urged against the indictment is, that it does not state the value of the property destroyed.

In England, there is no need of making such an averment in the indictment, and it is usually omitted in the forms. But, in England!, the extent of the punishment for arson does not at all depend upon the value of the property consumed or injured. In this state it is otherwise. In addition to imprisonment in the penitentiary, the guilty person is liable to a fine not exceeding double the value of the property destroyed. And this Court has decided that an indictment for a malicious trespass, which, in principle, is not to be distinguished from this case, was bad for not laying the amount of damages done to the owner of the injured property. *The State*v. Peden, 2 Blackf. 371. See, also, *Commonwealth*v. *Smith et al.*1 Mass. R. 245.

It is contended by the plaintiff in error, that the evidence did not sustain either count in the indictment in respect to the ownership or possession of the store-house therein named. This point it is now unnecessary to investigate. Arson is an offence against possession ; and the indictment should aver the property burned, or set on fire, to belong to the person or persons in the actual possession in his or their own right.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the indictment set aside. Cause remanded with instructions to the Circuit Court to quash the indictment, and to retain the prisoner in custody to answer another indictment for the same offence.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2153 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2153

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 223 South Main Street in Roxboro, North Carolina, as the ``Oscar 
                  Scott Woody Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2004

  Mr. Edwards introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 223 South Main Street in Roxboro, North Carolina, as the ``Oscar 
                  Scott Woody Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. OSCAR SCOTT WOODY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 223 South Main Street in Roxboro, North Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Oscar Scott Woody Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Oscar Scott 
Woody Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSE GERALDO JIMINEZ

- RODRIGUEZ

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 2149

[ January 18, 2024 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.8 0 0 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Laurie E. Buchanan,

Judge; L.T. Case No. 432010CF000561A.

Jose Geraldo Jimenez

- Rodriguez, Miami, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER

, G ERBER and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00053-CV 

IN RE JOHN AUSTIN BASHAM, DARLIA 

LEE HOBBS, AND TEXANS FOR 

GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY

RELATORS

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of injunction and motion 

for emergency relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.2 

Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ of injunction and motion for emergency 

relief are denied.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).

2We cannot take affirmative acts beyond that necessary for enforcement of 

this court’s jurisdiction. See In re Williams, No. 02-13-00087-CV, 2013 WL 

1437253, at *2–3 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth Apr. 8, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. 

op.).
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and MEIER, J.

DELIVERED: February 27, 2014
---

Exhibit 32.1

|CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
|------------------------------------------------
|PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER                     
|PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,             
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                          
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   

The undersigned, Rudijanto Azali, President and Chief Executive
Officer of WorldStar Energy, Corp., and Michael Kinley, Chief Financial Officer
of WorldStar Energy, Corp., each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of WorldStar Energy Corp. for the year ended
March 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of WorldStar Energy Corp.

Date: September 9, 2011

|By: | /s/ Rudijanto Azali                         | 
|--- | ------------------------------------------- | 
|    | Rudijanto Azali                             | 
|    | President and Chief Executive
      Officer | 
|    |                                             | 
|    |                                             | 
|By: | /s/ Michael Kinley                          | 
|    | Michael Kinley                              | 
|    | Chief Financial Officer                     | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit
32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Fresh Choice, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 13, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Everett F. Jefferson, Chief Executive Officer 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 (Section 906), that:

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

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

July 28, 2004

| | /s/ Everett F. JeffersonEverett F. Jefferson
Chief Executive Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 31, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01014-CV

IN RE REGINALD NOBLE, Relator

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F00-50025-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

Before the Court is relator=s petition for writ of mandamus naming his appellate counsel 

as respondent. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them 

herein. This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over relator’s attorney. See TEX. GOV=T 

CODE ANN. ' 22.221 (West 2010). Accordingly, we DISMISS relator=s petition for a writ of 

mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

131014F.P05

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
#### BATES MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC. v. LLOYD’S ELECTRONICS, INC.

September 24, 1984.

The parties having stipulated to a dismissal of this matter, it is ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.