alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosures controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an Annual Report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Eric W. FinlaysonEric W. FinlaysonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"The Axes of Flight","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7RC7DqdByJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/the-axes-of-flight\/\">The Axes of Flight<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/the-axes-of-flight\/embed\/#?secret=7RC7DqdByJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“The Axes of Flight” — NASA\" data-secret=\"7RC7DqdByJ\" 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\/2020\/04\/edu_srch_the_axis_of_flight.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":459}
July 12, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DUNG QUOC NGUYEN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00292

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED . We further order this decision certified below for obs ervance.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 21



                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES




American Homestar Corporation

Nationwide Housing Systems, Inc.

Nationwide Housing Corporation

Nationwide West, Inc.

Nationwide NC Homes, Inc.

Associated Retailers Group, Inc.

Roadmasters Transport Company, Inc. (51% owned)

American Homestar Financial Services, Inc.

Western Insurance Agency, Inc.

Lifestar Reinsurance, Ltd.

21st Century Mortgage Corporation (50% owned)

Oak Creek Housing Corporation

American Homestar of Burleson, Inc.

American Homestar of Lancaster, Inc.

Oak Creek Homes, Inc.

Heartland Homes, Inc.

Guerdon Holdings, Inc.

Guerdon Homes, Inc.

Brilliant Holding Corporation

Brilliant Carriers, Inc.

Brilliant Homes Corporation
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHANGGUO YU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73457

Agency No. A096-057-944

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 12, 2014** 

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Changguo Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597

FILED

JUN 16 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. The

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Yu’s second

motion to reopen because the motion was filed nine years after his final order of

removal, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3)(i), 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A) (an alien has 180

days to file a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order if the alien can show

that she failed to appear for the hearing due to exceptional circumstances), and Yu

failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary for equitable tolling, see Avagyan

v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011), or establish materially changed

country conditions so as to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time

limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597

F.3d at 987 (new evidence “must be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence

presented at the previous hearing”).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Yu’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 

2 12-73457
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Edward K. Aldag, Jr., certify that:

| 1) | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of MPT Operating Partnership, L.P. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

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

 

| Date: August 6, 2019 |   |   |   |   |   | /s/ Edward K. Aldag, Jr.                                                                                                      |
|----------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   |   |   |   |   | Edward K. Aldag, Jr.                                                                                                          |
|                 |   |   |   |   |   | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

of the Sole Member of the General Partner of MPT Operating Partnership, L.P. |
#### C. M. Howard *v.*F. Hunter.

Pleadings — Withdrawal of Exhibit — Use on the Trial — Waiver.

Although an exhibit is withdrawn and not refiled, if it is recognized and treated by both parties and the court as a legitimate part of the defense, without objections, the irregularity will be regarded as waived.

Evidence — Comparison of Handwriting — Competency.

It is a well established rule that the comparison of handwriting is not competent evidence.

APPEAL PROM ELLIOTT CIRCUIT COURT.

October 6, 1871.

*Hannah, for appellant.*

*Botts, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

Although so much of the answer as set up, the receipt for $68.00 was withdrawn on the first of December, 1869, and was not afterwards refiled, as it clearly appears that on the final trial it was.recognized and treated by both parties and the court as a legitimate part of the defense without objection, we must regard the irregularity as having been waived.

But the action of the court in admitting and using for the purposes of a comparison of hand writings the note of J. M. Elliott over the objection of the plaintiff and which was excepted to by him, is deemed erroneous. It is a well established rule that comparison of hand writing is not competent evidence. *Woodard vs. Spiller,*1 Dana *180; McAllister vs. McAllister, 7*B. Monroe 269.

There are some exceptions to this general rule as shown in the cases just cited, but there is nothing in this case to bring it within those exceptions.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Anthony Greicius","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/anthony-greicius-116962jpl-nasa-gov\/","title":"NASA\u2019s Deep Space Network Looks to the Future","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"u6ZYJKGVhF\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/nasas-deep-space-network-looks-to-the-future\/\">NASA\u2019s Deep Space Network Looks to the Future<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/nasas-deep-space-network-looks-to-the-future\/embed\/#?secret=u6ZYJKGVhF\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s Deep Space Network Looks to the Future” — NASA\" data-secret=\"u6ZYJKGVhF\" 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\/09\/1_goldstone-70m-dish-16.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40129 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MICHAEL SHELLEY , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18

- CR

- 92

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Shelley appeals the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his 10

- year sentence for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 , an offense that
is punishable by up to 30 years in prison. The Government has filed a motion

to dismiss the appeal based on his appeal waiver in the plea agreement. Notwithstanding Shelley’s creative argument to the contrary , the record reflects that he understood that he was waiving the right to app eal his sentence

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40129 Document: 00515265796 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2020No. 19

- 40129

2 in the plea agreement unless the sentence exceeded the 30

- year statutory maximum or resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel. The meaning of the waiver was clearly conveyed by the straightforward plea agreement, which Shelley read and signed after careful review with his attorney , and by the magistrate judge at the plea hearing

. Accordingly, the waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). We reject Shelley’s assertion that th e Government should be required to waive its contractual right to enforce the appeal waiver , having satisfied its own obligation to recommend a sentence at the low end of the guidelines range

. To the extent Shelley contends that we should not enforce the appeal waiver because it unfairly prevents him from raising meritorious claims, we have

never recognize d such a n exception to a valid appeal waiver

. Because the waiver was informed and voluntary, Shelley “ will be held to the bargain to which he agreed.” Id. at 2 93. The plain language of the waiver applies to bar his appeal

. See United States v. Bond , 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005)

. The Government’s motion is GRANTED , and the case is DISMISSED. Shelley’s request that we take judicial notice of a grant of
certiorari in a case relevant to the merits of his appeal is DENIED as moot. Case: 19-40129 Document: 00515265796 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2020
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 Imagin Molecular Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Joseph G. Oliverio, as Chief Executive Officer hereby certifies, 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 the Registrant.
 
 
 Dated: May 19, 2009
/s/ Joseph G. OliverioJoseph G. OliverioChief Executive Officer, Director(principal executive officer)
 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Imagin Molecular Corporation and will be retained by Imagin Molecular Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Motion Granted; Order filed March 27, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 0108 2

- CR NO. 14

- 13

- 01083

- CR

____________ REGINALD DAMON PATTE RSON , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 12CR3442 & 12CR3443



### ORDER

Appellant filed a motion to supplement the record with the original of State's exhibit 123, a videotape.The clerk of the 10th District Court is directed to deliver to the c lerk of this

court the original of State's exhibit 123, a videotape, on or before April 10, 2014.
The c lerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State's exhibit 123, a videotape,
to the clerk of the 10th District Court.
Appellant’s brief is on or before May 12, 2014.

PER CURIAM
#### George Gayle, etc., Wm. S. Elam.

Fraud — Defense—Pleading—Answer.

Inasmuch, as the original answer failed to state that the discovery that the representations were false and fraudulent, was not made until after the execution of the note, it was not sufficient, even when tested by the principals in the case of Pitt v. Shannon, Hardin’s Rept. 58.

APPEAL, PROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 8, 1871.

*Rodman, for appellants.*

*Vance, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Inasmuch as the original answer failed to state that the discovery, that the representations of Henry & Lyons & Co. were false and fraudulent was not made until after the execution of the note to Elam, said answer was not sufficient even when tested by the principles governing this court in the case of *Pitt v. Shannon*(Hardin’s Rept. 58), and consequently the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the same.

It seems from the record that the appellants afterwards offered to file the amended answers but that the court refused to permit either of them to be filed. The clerk copies into the record two papers, which he terms “amended answers.”

How said papers came into his possession does not appear, as the court did not permit the amendments to be filed, nor even lodged in the papers of the case, and as they were not made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions they in law remained in the possession of the appellants as their private property, and they could not make them a part of the record in this case by merely depositing them with the clerk without leave of court. As said papers cannot be considered a part of the record, of course we cannot determine that the court erred in refusing to permit the amendments offered to be filed.

The judgment of the circuit court must, therefore, be affirmed.
#### Wm. Jenning’s *v.*Jesse Qantis’ Exor., &c.

Judicial Sales — Failure to Make Proper Application of Proceeds — Remedy.

Where the proceeds of a judicial sale are improperly applied, the remedy is to apply to the court for a proper application and not by excepting to the sale.

APPEAL FROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 18, 1871.

Opinion op the Oourt by

Judge Peters:

On the 12th of July, 1871, when appellant filed his answer, in *627which he admitted, his indebtedness to Gr. P. Burdett, he knew he was obligor in the note bearing date March 31st, 1871, which the bank held; that it had four months to run from its date, and was unpaid when the answer was filed and the judgment was rendered for a foreclosure of the mortgage. He should then have stated the facts., and asked the court to have the proceeds of the sale of his land applied to the payment of this debt.

McKee, *Hopper, for appellant.*

*Dunlap, for appellees.*

That he failed to do and after the judgment was rendered again renewed the note, if from any facts or circumstances subsequently developed he discovered that Burdett intended to use the proceeds of the sale, and not apply them to the discharge of the debt, his remedy would have been by an amended pleading, and not by excepting to the sale; the purchaser was no party to the controversy, and the remedy of the apprehended injury was not by setting the sale aside, but to have the proceeds properly applied.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*