alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,John Carrozza, Acting Chief Financial Officer of PSB Bancorp, Inc., certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PSB Bancorp, Inc.;

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)and we have:

 

(a)  Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)  Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

(c)  Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

(a)  All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)  Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  August 16, 2004

 
|   | /s/John  Carrozza               |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | John  Carrozza                  |
|   | Acting  Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
Exhibit 4.20
(Summary Translation)
​
	Working Capital Loan Agreement with China Everbright Bank, Wulumuqi Branch 

	​

	Date of the Agreement
	April 20, 2020

	​
	​

	Borrower (Party A)
	Xinjiang Daqo New Energy Co., Ltd. 

	​
	​

	Lender (Party B)
	China Everbright Bank, Wulumuqi Branch 

	​
	​

	Use of loan
	Business operation 

	​
	​

	Amount
	RMB70 million 

	​
	​

	Term of loan
	1 year, from April 20, 2020 to April 19, 2021

	​
	​

	Interest rate
	Fixed rate at 5.438%, which will not change during the term of loan 

	​
	​

	Repayment of interest
	Interest shall be paid quarterly at the 20th day of last month of each quarter

	​
	​

	Penalty rate
	In the event of misappropriation of the loan proceeds under the Agreement, the penalty rate shall be 50% over the interest rate.
​
In the event of payment default, the penalty rate shall be 50% over the interest rate.
​
A compound interest will be imposed on any overdue interest.

	​
	​

	Repayment of principal
	Principal shall be repaid in full on April 19, 2021.

	​
	​

	Guarantee and Security
	Joint and several liability guarantees provided by Daqo Group Co., Ltd., Daqo New Material Co., Ltd. and Chongqing Daqo New Energy Co., Ltd.



​
​



​
	Party A’s covenants
	Party A shall:
​
(1) Notify Party B in at least 30 days advance and obtain a written consent from Party B in respect of investment, substantially increase of debt financing, merger, spinoff, decrease of share capital, share transfer, asset transfer, suspension of business, dissolution, bankruptcy and other actions which will affect the interest of Party B, and shall fulfill its repayment obligations;
​
(2) Within the term of loan, without Party B's written consent, Party A shall not assume the obligation to pay any debts of any third party, provide any guarantee or set any mortgage or pledge over Party A's asset or interest which would affect Party A's ability of repayment of the loan;
​
(3) Party A shall timely report to Party B any related party transaction involving 10% or more of Party A’s net assets, including the relationships among the parties to the transaction, nature, subject, amount of the transaction, and the transaction’s pricing; and
​
(4) Other than specified above, notify Party B in written immediately in respect of any matter which may jeopardize Party A's normal operation or cause material adverse impact to its ability to its performance of this Agreement.
  



​
#### NEW BRUNSWICK SAVINGS BANK v. PETER MARKOUSKI, ET UX, ET AL., AND HERITAGE BANK, N.A. AND EQUITY LENDER’S CORPORATION.

July 11, 1989.

Petition for certification granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1








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 Quarterly Report of eMagin Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q /A for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Andrew G. Sculley, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated:  October 7, 2011
By:
/s/ Andrew G. SculleyAndrew G. SculleyChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 6  CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  In connection with the
accompanying annual report on Form 40-F of NOVA Chemicals Corporation for
the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report), I, Larry A. MacDonald,
Chief Financial Officer of NOVA Chemicals Corporation, hereby certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)such 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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of NOVA Chemicals Corporation.   March 15, 2004
  /s/ Larry A. MacDonaldLarry A. MacDonaldChief Financial Officer
Case 2:15-mj-01792-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01792-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01792-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/30/15 Page 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Nathan Cranford","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nathan-a-cranfordnasa-gov\/","title":"HERA","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dOU8YYX3GY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/hera\/\">HERA<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/hera\/embed\/#?secret=dOU8YYX3GY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“HERA” — NASA\" data-secret=\"dOU8YYX3GY\" 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\/04\/admin-ajax-1.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JONATHAN LEE ELLIOTT, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JANSSEN PHAR

M AC EUTIC ALS, INC .; JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-55283 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00743-DM GM R W
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dolly M
. Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 20, 2016 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TASHIM A, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Jona tha n Le e Elliott a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his dive

rsity a c t i on a l le ging sta

te la w c la i m s a

rising from his useof a pre s c ription m e dic ation. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w 

# FIL ED JAN 28 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de novo. Tuc k e r v . Bax te r He althc areC orp. , 158 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th C ir. 1998). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on theba sis tha t Elliott’ s a c t ion wa s tim e -barre d be c a use Elliott file d

his a c tion m o re tha

n two y e ars a fte r his c la im s a c c rue d a nd he fa ile d to ra ise a

ge n uine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he wa s e ntitle d to de la y e d a c c rua l. Se e C a l. C ode C iv. Proc . § 335.1 (two-y e ar statute of lim ita t ions for pe rsona l injury

a c tions); Slov e nsk

y v . Frie dman , 49 C a l. R ptr. 3d 60, 68 (C t. App. 2006), as modified on de nial of reh ’g (se tting forth C a lifornia

la w re g arding de la

y e d a c c rua l of the sta

tute of lim ita

tions). W e re je c t a s unsupporte d

Elliott’ s c onte ntion tha

t he wa s e ntitle d to sta

tutory tolling. W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f. Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). All pe nding re q

u e sts a nd m otions a

re de n ie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 4
- 5 5 2 8 3 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"55 Years Ago: Gemini X Soars to New Heights","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2Ugv72os4j\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/55-years-ago-gemini-x-soars-to-new-heights\/\">55 Years Ago: Gemini X Soars to New Heights<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/55-years-ago-gemini-x-soars-to-new-heights\/embed\/#?secret=2Ugv72os4j\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“55 Years Ago: Gemini X Soars to New Heights” — NASA\" data-secret=\"2Ugv72os4j\" 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\/2021\/07\/gemini_x_15_young_collins_on_carrier_deck_gt10-277-noid-7.21.66.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":892}
#### William J. Gray, Trustee, etc., v. The Federal Bank of Canada et al.

*Mortgage—Foreclosure—Decree—Time of sale,*

A foreclosure bill was amended by adding new parties, and was again amended by correcting the name of one of the added parties by changing his sirname from Hamlin to Hammond, his real name. And it is held that a sale could not be decreed until one year after the filing of the last amendment, by which *366Hammond was made a party defendant; citing *Canfield v. Shear,*49 Mich. 313; *Burt v. Thomas,*Id. 462.

Appeal from Wayne. ' (Keilly, J.)

Submitted on briefs November 14, 1890.

Decided November 21, 1890.

Bill to foreclose a mortgage. Defendants Federal Bank of Canada and Herbert C. Hammond appeal from final decree entered June 18, 1890, authorizing foreclosure sale at any time after November 11, 1890.

Decree modified so as to allow a sale after the expiration of one year from the filing of the last amendment to the bill, by which Hammond was made a party.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Robert T. Gray,*for complainant.

*S. S. Babcoclc,*for appellants.

*Dickinson, Thurber & Stevenson,*for defendant Snyder.

*Boioen, Douglas & Whiting,*for defendants Whyte and McMahen.

Per Curiam.

A bill to foreclose a mortgage was filed November 11, 1889. Afterwards, and on Decémber 13, 1889, the bill was amended by adding new parties. Again, on April 15, 1890, the bill was amended, so as to correct a name of a party defendant, by changing the name from Hamlin to Hammond. A final decree was entered on June 18,' 1890, which authorized a foreclosure sale at any time after November 11, 1890. The Federal Bank of Canada and Herbert C. Hammond, who were made parties as subsequent incumbrancers, appeal, and insist that the decree is erroneous, in that it authorizes a sale in less than a year from the filing of the amended bill. How. Stat. § 6701.

The decree must be so modified as to authorize a *367sale after the expiration of the year from the filing of the last amendment, by which Hammond was made a party. *Canfield v. Shear,*49 Mich. 313; *Burt v. Thomas,*Id. 462. A decree will be entered authorizing a sale after April 15, 1891, and the record remanded to the circuit court in chancery for the execution of the decree.

As the appeal was made in the interest of complainant as well as of appellants, who hold as tenants, no costs will be allowed to either party in this Court.
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – TUCSON 

U.S. District Judge: Raner C. Collins Date: November 19, 2018 

USA v. Lonnie Ray Swartz Case Number: CR-15-01723-001-TUC-RCC (DTF)

Assistant U.S. Attorney: Wallace Kleindienst/Mary Sue Feldmeier (presence not required) 

Attorney for Defendant: Sean Chapman/Jaime Calle, Retained (presence not required) 

Deputy Clerk: Sherry Gammon 

Court Reporter: Erica McQuillen 

Spanish Interpreter for victim’s family: Sandy Frady (presence not required) 

 

Defendant: ☒ Presence not required ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ 

JURY TRIAL – Day 15: 

The jury arrives at 9:30 a.m. to resume deliberation. 

Lunch recess taken 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. 

Recess taken 3:12 p.m. – 3:22 p.m. 

The jury is excused at 4:55 p.m. Jury deliberation continues to 11/20/2018 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge 

Raner C. Collins. 

 Jury Trial: 

 Jury deliberation time: 6 Hour 15 Minutes 

 9:30 a.m. – 4:55 p.m. 

Case 4:15-cr-01723-RCC-DTF Document 628 Filed 11/19/18 Page 1 of 1
#### Foley and Another *v.*Knight.

On a trial of the right of property taken in execution, the debtor’s possession of the goods after his executing an absolute bill of sale of them to the claimant, may be shown, by parol evidence, not to bo fraudulent.

Tuesday, *December*5

ERROR to the *Henry*Circuit Court. The judgment of the Circuit Court was for *Knight,*the claimant.

Dewey, J.

This was a trial of the right of property seized by execution. The claimant gave in evidence an absolute bill *421of sale from the defendant in execution, by which it appeared that the latter had bargained, sold, and delivered to him property in question. He was then suffered to prove by parol what was the consideration of the sale, and to explain the subsequent possession of the property by the vendor, with a view to rebut the presumption of fraud arising from that circumstance.

*J. Rariden*and *J. S. Newman,*for the plaintiffs.

*C. B. Smith*and *D. Macy,*for the defendant.

The admission of the parol testimony was objected to; and it is now contended that the Circuit Court erred in admitting it, on the ground that it contradicted the bill of sale. Had it really done so, the testimony would certainly have been illegal; but we do not perceive that it had that effect. If parol testimony had been introduced to prove that the understanding or agreement of the parties, as a part of the contract of sale, was, that the vendor should retain possession of the property, it would have been inadmissible. Such, however, does not appear to have been its design or effect: its tendency was merely to show that the subsequent possession of the seller was not fraudulent; and, in this point of view, it comes directly within the decisions of this Court in the cases of *Hankins et al.*v. *Ingols,*and *Watson et al.*v. *Williams et al.,*decided at the *May*term, 1835. In those cases such testimony was held to be legal.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs. To be certified, &c.
* 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

April 30, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-30899

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v

GARY K RIDDLE

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CR-20028-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary K. Riddle (Riddle) pleaded guilty to production of

child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and

possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2252A(a)(5)(B). He appeals, arguing that these statutes are

unconstitutional as applied to his conduct because they exceed

Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce under the

Commerce Clause. In addition, Riddle states that his
No. 02-30899

-2-

constitutional challenge is foreclosed by our ruling in United

States v. Kallestad, 236 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 2000), and only

raises the issue to preserve it for future review.

A valid unconditional guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the trial court proceedings against

a defendant, including an as-applied constitutional challenge

to a statute. United States v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 657, 659

(5th Cir. 1999), vacated on other grounds and remanded, 530 U.S.

1201 (2000), opinion reinstated with modification, 246 F.3d 749

(5th Cir. 2001). Riddle’s challenge to the interstate commerce

aspect of the statutes at issue does not raise a jurisdictional

issue. See id. (finding that interstate commerce requirement of

arson statute, 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), was “not a prerequisite to

subject matter jurisdiction.”); United States v. Robinson,

119 F.3d 1205, 1212 n.4 (5th Cir. 1997) (finding that interstate

commerce element of Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, was not

jurisdictional). Accordingly, by entering into an unconditional

guilty plea agreement, Riddle has waived his as-applied

constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and

2252A(a)(5)(B). See Johnson, 194 F.3d at 659.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby

AFFIRMED.