alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, G. Peter D’Aloia, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of American StandardCompanies Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant 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,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is 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 endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (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 torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
1

 

 (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: October 29, 2004
By: /s/ G. Peter D’Aloia      G. Peter D’Aloia      Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
2
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 425

To enable the residents of the Bayshore Manor assisted living facility in 

Key West, Florida, to continue to receive supplemental security income 

benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2003

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To enable the residents of the Bayshore Manor assisted 

living facility in Key West, Florida, to continue to receive 

supplemental security income benefits under title XVI 

of the Social Security Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR THE BAYSHORE MANOR AS4 SISTED LIVING FACILITY IN KEY WEST, FLOR5 IDA. 

6 For purposes of the supplemental security income 

7 program under title XVI of the Social Security Act, the 

8 Bayshore Manor assisted living facility in Key West, Flor-
2

•HR 425 IH 

1 ida, shall not be considered to be a public institution with2 in the meaning of section 1611(e)(1) of such Act.

Æ
6th Meeting of the IoT Advisory Board

Agenda (times are in eastern U.S. time and are approximate) 

August 22, 2023

11:00 AM – Chair’s opening remarks including meeting agenda and anticipated outcomes for the 

meeting

11:15 AM – Outside speaker: Manu Fontaine , Hushmesh

11:30 AM - Additional outside speakers: TBD

12:30 PM – Chair/Vice Chair Comments 

Timeline Review 

1:15 PM - Break

1:30 PM - Discussion of draft Report 

Comments on Draft Report 

Organizing Themes

Report takeaways

Graphics

Other elements 

4:00 PM - Recommendations from Speakers at July Meeting 

4:45 PM - Wrap up of the day

5:00 PM - Adjourn for the day

August 23, 2023

11:00 AM – Chair’s opening remarks for the day

11:15 AM – Recommendations requiring discussion – not in report 

12:45 PM - Break

1:00 PM - Recommendations requiring discussion – not in report (continued) 

4:45 PM - Wrap up 

5:00 PM - Adjourn
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4222

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office Building’’. Kansas City, Kansas, as the ‘‘Newell George al Service located at 550 Nebraska Avenue in

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4222

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas,

as the ‘‘Newell George Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4222 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas,

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Newell George Post

5 Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Newell George Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives June 21, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
NUMBER 13-18-00372-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE BROOKFIELD INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP, LLC

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Relator Brookfield Infrastructure Group, LLC and real party in interest Matagorda 

County Appraisal District have filed a “Joint Agreed Motion to Abate Mandamus 

Proceeding Pending Finalization of Settlement Documentation.” According to this motion, 

the parties to this original proceeding have settled and compromised their differences, 

and they request that we remove this case from the Court’s active docket and abate this 

matter for a period of thirty days to allow their settlement to be finalized. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the joint agreed motion to abate, 

is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. Accordingly, we grant the joint agreed 
2

motion to abate this case. We direct the parties to advise the Court of the status of the 

settlement proceedings prior to the conclusion of the thirty-day abatement period. This 

matter will be reinstated upon further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

17th day of July, 2018.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4279

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the disposition 

of unused health benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2004

Mr. MCCRERY (for himself and Mr. ROYCE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for the disposition of unused health benefits in cafeteria 

plans and flexible spending arrangements.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DISPOSITION OF UNUSED HEALTH BENEFITS 

4 IN CAFETERIA PLANS AND FLEXIBLE SPEND5 ING ARRANGEMENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 125 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 (relating to cafeteria plans) is amended 

8 by redesignating subsections (h) and (i) as subsections (i) 
2

•HR 4279 IH 

1 and (j), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (g) 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(h) CONTRIBUTIONS OF CERTAIN UNUSED HEALTH

4 BENEFITS.—

5 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this title, 

6 a plan or other arrangement shall not fail to be 

7 treated as a cafeteria plan solely because qualified 

8 benefits under such plan include a health flexible 

9 spending arrangement under which not more than 

10 $500 of unused health benefits may be—

11 ‘‘(A) carried forward to the succeeding 

12 plan year of such health flexible spending ar13 rangement, or 

14 ‘‘(B) to the extent permitted by section 

15 106(d), contributed by the employer to a health 

16 savings account (as defined in section 223(d)) 

17 maintained for the benefit of the employee. 

18 ‘‘(2) HEALTH FLEXIBLE SPENDING ARRANGE19 MENT.—For purposes of this subsection, the term 

20 ‘health flexible spending arrangement’ means a flexi21 ble spending arrangement (as defined in section 

22 106(c)) that is a qualified benefit and only permits 

23 reimbursement for expenses for medical care (as de24 fined in section 213(d)(1), without regard to sub25 paragraphs (C) and (D) thereof). 
3

•HR 4279 IH 

1 ‘‘(3) UNUSED HEALTH BENEFITS.—For pur2 poses of this subsection, with respect to an em3 ployee, the term ‘unused health benefits’ means the 

4 excess of—

5 ‘‘(A) the maximum amount of reimburse6 ment allowable to the employee for a plan year 

7 under a health flexible spending arrangement, 

8 over 

9 ‘‘(B) the actual amount of reimbursement 

10 for such year under such arrangement.’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

13 December 31, 2003.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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


I, Michael Cannon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Solectron Corporation on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended
November 26, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Solectron Corporation.

Date:   January 3, 2005

                                       /S/   Michael Cannon
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Michael Cannon
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
9415.

#### National Bank of Savannah *et al. v.*Evans *et al.,*receivers.

Decided May 16, 1919.

Description and counsel as in case next preceding.

Luke, J.

1. This case is controlled by the’ decision in *National Bank of Savannah*v. *Evans,*ante, 736, and, for the reasons therein stated, the judgment overruling the special demurrers therein pointed out is reversed. See also the answer of the Supreme Court to certified questions in *National Bank of Savannah*v. *Evans,*149 *Ga.*(99 S. E. 123).

2. Under the foregoing ruling the court did not err in allowing the amendment to the petition.

*,Judgment reversed.*

*Wade, C.*J., *and Jenkins, J., concur.*
From: Larry Marks 

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 7:48 PM

To: CSF-SCRM-RFI <CSF-SCRM-RFI@nist.gov>

Subject: Comments on the next framework for supply chain

Here on my personal comments to be used as reference and drafting for updating the next framework 

for the NIST supply chain:

1-New York State Department of finance as well as The federal Cisa agency Require that the supply chain 

for the supplier be reviewed for incident management and due diligence and other regulatory 

requirements Such as BCp/Dr. If Vendor a signs a contract with vendor b then vendor a has to be 

concerned about vendor b and other vendors or suppliers who vendor b deals with to provide the 

services to Vendor a.

2-The location of the supplier data and Who has access to the data as well as GDPROCC PA or other 

privacy requirements are relevant. It’s the domino effect of signing a contract with a vendor and the 

concern about the suppliers controls to meet the service that is being requested.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Gregory F. Kowal, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

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 Company'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 have:

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, 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 Company'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 Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company'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 Company's internal controls; and

6.

The Company's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether 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:  Sept 09, 2009

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ Gregory F. Kowal   
| | Gregory F. Kowal       
| | Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00709-CR

IN RE Ernesto MEDINA

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 16, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 2, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the 

petition and this record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, 

the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017CR4038, styled State of Texas v. Ernesto Medina, pending in the 379th 

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,102
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,839
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,268
<PP&E>                                         265,369
<DEPRECIATION>                                 101,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 186,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,159
<BONDS>                                         54,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,145
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,461
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   186,532
<SALES>                                         21,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   110
<CGS>                                           11,745
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   956
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,362
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,094
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,268
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,268
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43



</TABLE>
10475.

#### Warlick *v.*McLeod.

Decided October 20, 1919.

Rehearing denied November, 19, 1919.

Application for discharge from custody; from Floyd superior court—Judge Wright. February 15, 1919.

*Henry Walker,*for plaintiff in error.

*L. H. Covington,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

This ease is an application for discharge in a bail-trover proceeding. The court did not err in discharging the applicant upon his own recognizance, since there was evidence to authorize a finding to the effect: (1) that the applicant was at the time the application was made, and had since remained, in the legal custody of the sheriff *(Everett*v. *Holcomb,*1 *Ga. App.*794, 58 S. E. 287); (2) that he was unable to give the bond and security required by law; and (3) that the nonproduetion of the property sued for was a physical impossibility at the time of the issuance of the writ, which condition had continued to exist without subsequent fault or misconduct on the part of the applicant. *Marsh*v. *Ben. H. Fletcher Co.,*17 *Ga. App.*735 (88 S. E. 416).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 Patriot Scientific Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an
      exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of Patriot Scientific
      Corporation does hereby certify, pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
      and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
      18
      of the United States Code 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.





Date:
      October 23, 2006


/s/
              Thomas J. SweeneyThomas
              J. Sweeney*Chief
                Financial Officer*
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.63

                  SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

                           CARDIAC SCIENCE CORPORATION

                       NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

<TABLE>
<S>                                                                                           <C>
2005 COMPENSATION:

Director Stipend...........................................................................   $5,000

Committee Chair Stipend:

         Audit Committee...................................................................   $3,333

         Compensation Committee............................................................   $2,500

         Nominating and Governance Committee...............................................   $1,667

Board Meeting Fee..........................................................................   $1,000

Committee Meeting Fee......................................................................   $  700
</TABLE>

Telephonic Meetings = 60% of Regular Meeting Fees

Stock Option Grants:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     NUMBER OF
NAME                                  OPTIONS
----                                 ---------
<S>                                  <C>
Ruediger Naumann-Etienne               10,000

Bruce J. Barclay                       15,000

Robert W. Berg                         10,000

Jue-Hsien Chern                        10,000

Harvey N. Gillis                       10,000

Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Sr.              15,000
</TABLE>

<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<S>                                                                                          <C>
2006 COMPENSATION:

Annual Director Stipend...................................................................   $15,000

Annual Committee Chair Stipend:

         Audit Committee..................................................................   $10,000

         Compensation Committee...........................................................   $ 7,500

         Nominating and Governance Committee..............................................   $ 5,000

Board Meeting Fee.........................................................................   $ 1,000

Committee Meeting Fee.....................................................................   $   700
</TABLE>

Telephonic Meetings = 60% of Regular Meeting Fees

<TABLE>
<S>                                                                                <C>
Initial Stock Option Grant (Upon appointment)................................      7,500 shares

Additional Annual Stock Option Grants........................................      7,500 shares
</TABLE>

                                       -2-