alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATIONS**
 
 Exhibit
31.2
 
 I, Corey
Conn, the Registrant's Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Cipher Holding
Corp.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 4. The
Registrant's other certifying officers 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 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
quarterly report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The
Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and b) any fraud, whether
or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6. The
Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date:
October 19, 2005
 
 /s/Corey
Conn
 Chief
Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eleza Michaels,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04657-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Moody Law Firm, Inc.

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 1/9/2018, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to 

do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: January 12, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9656 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9656 Filed 01/16/18 Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nos. 04-08-00914-CR, 04-08-915-CR, and 04-08-916-CR

David SAUCEDO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-2034A, 2007-CR-3012, and 2008-CR-3427B

Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM 

Sitting: Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 25, 2009

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss each of the above numbered appeals by 

withdrawing his notices of appeal. The motion is granted and these appeals are dismissed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Filed 11 / 29 / 22 P. v. St iles CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b) . This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHELSEA STILES

,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B 321005

(Super. Ct. No 19F

- 09422 )

( San Luis Obispo County)

Chelsea Stiles appeals a n order granting victim restitution

in the amount of $6,224.69 following her conviction of gross

vehicular manslaught er while intoxicated. (Pen. Code, § 191.5,

subd. (a).) The trial court held a restitution hearing. At that

hearing Stiles’ s counsel advised the court that “Stiles would be

submitting on the issue of restitution.” The court ordered Stiles

to pay $6,224. 69 to the California Victim’s Compensation Fund.

We appointed counsel to represent Stiles on this appeal.

After examination of the record

, h er c ounsel filed an opening brief

requesting the court to make an independent review under People2

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have independently reviewed

the record.

On October 7, 2022, we sent a letter to Stiles advis ing her

that she had 30 days within which to personally submit any

contentions or issues which s he wished us to consider. She did

not file a su pplemental brief and did not respond to our letter.

After examination of the record

, we are satisfied that Stiles’s

attorney has fully complied with h is responsibilities and that no

arguable issues exist. ( People v. Wende , supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp.

441 , 44 3. )

The judgment ( order ) is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.Denise De Bellefeuille, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Mark R. Feeser , under appointment by the Court of Appeal,

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 62","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"nj6bFavLvn\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-62\/\">Expedition 62<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-62\/embed\/#?secret=nj6bFavLvn\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 62” — NASA\" data-secret=\"nj6bFavLvn\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/exp62-officia-l-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW   Document 1-11   Filed 09/02/15   Page 1 of 3

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW   Document 1-11   Filed 09/02/15   Page 2 of 3

Case 2:15-cv-01759-NVW   Document 1-11   Filed 09/02/15   Page 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-116","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pY7enzaAGb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-116\/\">STS-116<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-116\/embed\/#?secret=pY7enzaAGb\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-116” — NASA\" data-secret=\"pY7enzaAGb\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/STS116-S-002\/STS116-S-002~large.jpg?w=600&h=1536&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1536}
## NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 12a1158n.06 Case No. 11- 5937 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. MICHAEL MORRIS, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FR OM THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE E ASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESS EE

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; McK

EAGU E, Circuit Judge; and FORESTE R, District Judge. *



## ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Chief Ju dge. On appe al of this case to the United States Supreme Court, the Court vac ated our judgme nt and re manded f or fur ther c onsideration in light of Dorsey v . United States , 567 U.S. --, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012). Consequently , we VACATE the sentenc e imposed by the district court a

nd REMAND this case to the district cour t with inst ructions to impose sentence consistent with Dorsey
.

T h e H o n o r a b l e K a r l S
. F o r e s t e r , S e n i o r U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t J u d g e f o r t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f K e n t u c k y , s i t t i n g * b y d e s i g n a t i o n .
#### Hale *v.*Woodruff.

In error.

*Saturday, December*24.

*HELD,*that the president and trustees of *New-Albany*were not authorised, by the act of incorporation of 1832, to extend the limits of the corporation so as to include the out-lots of the town, without the consent of a majority of the resident owners of such lots.
#### Wilson Reeves *v.*Elizabeth Reeves.

Divorce — Neither Without Fault — Allowance Reasonable — Decree Will Not Be Disturbed.

Where neither party is shown to be without fault and the allowance for maintenance is reasonable, a decree of divorce will not be disturbed on appeal.

APPEAL FROM MARSHALL CIRCUIT COURT.

January 15, 1868.

*608
      *Gilbert, for appellant.*

*Palmer, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The domestic troubles which ultimately resulted in a separation might, and doubtless could have been avoided by the exercise of more patience by the one, and a more conciliatory course by the other. While the evidence shows that appellee was exacting’ and censorious towards the children of appellant it also shows that he indulged in threats of violence of an extraordinary character towards her, and actually manifested an intention to execute them.

The first two years of their married life seem to have been passed in harmony, and peace, and at the commencement of their difficulties if any efforts had been made mutually or even by either of the parties to reconcile them, and a spirit of forbearance, and kindness manifested, the evil consequences which have followed a different course would have been avoided. But the facts as presented in the record do not show either to be without fault; and since appellant is not blameless, and the allowance .for six months for the maintenance of appellee and her child, who is also the child of appellant, for whose support he is morally and legally bound, is very reasonable especially as a part of it is by the terms of the order to be applied to the payment of the cost of this suit no substantial, or sufficient reason is manifested for disturbing that order. Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADDED BY


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. (“Royal”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael S. Thompson, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, 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 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Royal as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.




/s/ Michael S. ThompsonMichael S. ThompsonPrincipal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting OfficerMay 20, 2013





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ricky Lee Stroble, * From the 259th District

Court of Jones County,

 Trial Court No. 022925.

Vs. No. 11-13-00106-CV * March 12, 2015

Paul Jennings and Adrian Correll, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,237
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                       685
<INVENTORY>                                     25,726
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,195
<PP&E>                                          43,357
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,227
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,723
<BONDS>                                          8,626
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            86
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,616
<SALES>                                         81,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,284
<CGS>                                           59,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   542
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,294
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        77
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,819)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    139
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,680)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.13)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998, AND THE RELATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND THE NOTES THERETO,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          52,186
<SECURITIES>                                    94,357
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,700
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,262
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,439
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,887
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,448)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        86
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,534)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,534)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $(3.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(3.25)
        

</TABLE>