alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
J. Kimo Esplin, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Huntsman International LLC for the year ended December 31, 2003;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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;

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 have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 30, 2004

| |  | /s/ J. KIMO ESPLINJ. Kimo Esplin Chief Financial Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32.02



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report of SWK Holdings Corporation (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles M. Jacobson Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.02, 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 Registrant.







|Date: July 25, 2013 |  | /s/ Charles M. Jacobson                    
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|                    |  | Charles M. Jacobson
Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,290
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,929
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,949
<INVENTORY>                                     36,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,773
<PP&E>                                       1,879,622
<DEPRECIATION>                                 790,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,486,755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          143,321
<BONDS>                                        474,841
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     74,000
<COMMON>                                       294,550
<OTHER-SE>                                     217,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,486,755
<SALES>                                        632,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               632,471
<CGS>                                          409,275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  505,422
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 95,948
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,496
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             61,452
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    61,452
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00<F1>
<FN>
<F1>All common stock is owned by parent, no EPS required.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
| 1.   | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November 15, 2010 | /s/ Lee W. Hendrickson                                                                                Lee W. HendricksonChief Financial Officer |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
* 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 forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50507 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MANUELA HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-98-CR-71-2-JN

-------------------- August 23, 2000 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Manuela Hernandez argues that the district court failed to comply with several of the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 at the time that she entered her guilty plea, which rendered her plea involuntary and the underlying plea agreement void. Hernandez argues that the district court failed to advise her of the mandatory minimum penalty that could be imposed if her offense was found to involve less than 500 grams of cocaine. This argument is frivolous because there is no mandatory minimum penalty if a drug offense involves less than 500 grams ofNo. 99-50507 -2- cocaine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Hernandez further argues that the district court failed to comply with Rule 11 because it erroneously advised her that a three-year term of supervised release, rather than a four-year term, could be imposed if the offense involved more than 500 grams but less than five kilograms of cocaine. Hernandez was sentenced based on the offense involving more than five kilograms of cocaine and was correctly advised that she could receive a five-year term of supervised release if that amount of drugs were attributed to her. A five-year term of supervised release was imposed at sentencing. Hernandez’s substantial rights were not affected by misinformation which had no relevancy at the time of her sentencing. See United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d 296, 301-03 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Hernandez argues that the district court further violated Rule 11 by failing to explain to her the potential effect of relevant conduct at sentencing. The district court was not required, prior to accepting the guilty plea, to predict Hernandez’s possible sentence under the guidelines or to advise her of the effects of relevant conduct on her sentence. See United States v. Hoster , 988 F.2d 1374, 1379 (5th Cir. 1993). The failure to discuss relevant conduct was not a violation of Rule 11. Hernandez argues that her trial counsel was ineffective during plea negotiations, at her rearraignment, and at sentencing. Hernandez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not presented to the district court and cannot beNo. 99-50507 -3- addressed on direct appeal because the record has not been adequately developed to consider the claims. See United States
v. Haese , 162 F.3d 359, 363-64 (5th Cir 1998), cert. denied , 526 U.S. 1138 (1999).
AFFIRMED.
#### Mary Vallandingham, et al., *v.*G. B. Igo.

Practice — Pleading—Evidence.

Where in an action for collection of a debt payment is not pleaded as a defense, evidence of payment is not admissible.

APPEAL FRÓM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

March 12, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Coper:

The record of the suits in the name of Christian were not admissible as evidence against the appellant. In the first case there was non suit, and the record under the issue made in the pleadings was not competent evidence for any purpose whatever. The second case was dismissed on motion of Christian, and he had leave to withdraw the note, which shows that there was no decision on the merits. *Harris v. Tiffany & Co.,*8 B. Mon. 225. This record did not, therefore, support the plea in bar, and should not have been allowed to go to the jury, and especially with an intimation from the court that it was *prima facie*evidence that the debt had been paid, and cast upon the appellant the burden of proving that it had not been paid.

The appellee did not plead payment, and evidence of payment is therefore inadmissible; and if payment had been pleaded, we are *428unable to perceive that the record would have tended to establish such a defense.

*J. R. Morton, for appellants.*

*T. B. Huston, for appellee.*

The court also erred in instructing the jury that if they found from the evidence that by any arrangement between Berkley and defendant the note had been satisfied and discharged, they should find for the defendent. There was no issue authorizing such an instruction. The second instruction given at the instance of the appellee correctly defined the law to the jury.

The facts relied upon in the answer, so far as Mrs. Vallandingham was effected by them, were defensive only; and the statute of limitation could not operate to deprive the appellee of his defense.

Judgment *reversed,*and cause remanded for a new trial.
<PAGE>   1

                                Exhibit No. 11.1



                         Statement of Computation of Net
                          Investment Income Per Limited
                                Partnership Unit


<PAGE>   2

                    FIDUCIARY CAPITAL PENSION PARTNERS, L.P.


                         STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET
                          INVESTMENT INCOME PER LIMITED
                                PARTNERSHIP UNIT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   For the Three Months              For the Nine Months
                                                    Ended September 30,              Ended September 30,
                                                    -------------------              --------------------
                                                  1997             1996             1997             1996
                                                  ----             ----             ----             ----

<S>                                           <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>       
Net Investment Income                         $  133,764       $  281,787       $  443,421       $  799,774

Percentage Allocable to Limited Partners              99%              99%              99%              99%
                                              ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------

Net Investment Income Allocable
   to Limited Partners                        $  132,426       $  278,969       $  438,987       $  791,776
                                              ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========

Weighted Average Number of Limited
   Partnership Units Outstanding               1,104,881        1,196,564        1,104,881        1,196,564
                                              ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========

Net Investment Income Per Limited
   Partnership Unit                           $      .12       $      .23       $      .40       $      .66
                                              ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21


                            SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES

                         NATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.


                                  STATE OR
                                    OTHER
                                JURISDICTION
                                     OF              NAME UNDER WHICH
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY             INCORPORATION     SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS
----------------------------   -------------     ------------------------

NCS Assessments, Inc.             Minnesota     National Computer Systems, Inc.
                                                NCS Assessments
                                                Professional Assessment
                                                   Services Division of
                                                   National Computer
                                                   Systems, Inc.


Macro Educational Systems, Inc.   California    National Computer Systems, Inc.
                                                Education Software and
                                                   Services Division
                                                   of National Computer
                                                   Systems, Inc.




Note:  No  other  subsidiary  of  National  Computer  Systems,  Inc.  meets  the
       conditions to be deemed a significant subsidiary.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29705]



[[Page 75799]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign 
Utility Company Status

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin Wind Energy, LLC................  EG14-92-000
Beech Ridge Energy LLC.................  EG14-93-000
Beech Ridge Energy II LLC..............  EG14-94-000
Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC.........  EG14-95-000
Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC..............  EG14-96-000
Spring Canyon Interconnection LLC......  EG14-97-000
Spring Canyon Energy III LLC...........  EG14-98-000
Spring Canyon Energy II LLC............  EG14-99-000
Spring Canyon Energy LLC...............  EG14-100-000
Seiling Wind Interconnection Services,   EG14-101-000
 LLC.
Hoopeston Wind LLC.....................  EG14-102-000
Calpine Fore River Energy Center, LLC..  EG14-103-000
Solar Star California XIII, LLC........  EG14-104-000
Indeck Wharton, LLC....................  EG14-105-000
Palo Duro Wind Interconnection           EG14-106-000
 Services, LLC.
Rattlesnake Wind I LLC.................  EG14-107-000
Roundtop Energy LLC....................  EG14-108-000
Bornish Wind, LP.......................  FC14-16-000
Kerwood Wind, LP.......................  FC14-17-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of November 2014, the status of 
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign 
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's 
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

    Dated: December 8, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29705 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
! " #$%&'

#()*+**+)*	)$*$#	*

,


----------"----------

#

".
















$"
(/

#(/


01 .
/


!
 ".

1 .
/

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#2. ,


 ,

,
3 
 !"" ,
  
#$

%&'
 ,

..2".
.2"
4"
 
0
"


,,"

" 4"
5 
064

07

.


46,
#

"

$..""2 " #$

%88 9,"

" ,.9: ,
206"
.
"
,#;%3


,
"

""
,#$%&''&9,

<
,,
6
22040
9

IT IS ORDERED,,
."/

+()+ ;	(*+,


="2
 "06.2"
"


.2".
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  .,"is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

+<
2",
7"
2
9002"",
> .

 ",00
.



IT IS SO ORDERED



/

Judge’s signature

+


/

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

Elizabeth Voncile Porter Gray 11-00270-003-CG

12339-003

June 29, 2012

Pro Se

✔

✔

November 6, 2014

United States District Judge

Elizabeth Voncile Gray Porter is not eligible for a reduction. Application of the amendment would result in a new total

offense level of 28, with a criminal history category of I, and a revised guideline range of 78 to 97 months. Although the

defendant's guideline range would subsequently be lowered by application of the amendment, at the time of sentencing,

Porter received a sentence (66 months) which fell outside of the advisory guideline range. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. §

1B1.10, Application Note 3, the Court may only grant a comparable reduction outside of the guideline range if the

defendant provided substantial assistance to authorities. As the defendants reduction was granted pursuant to 3553(a)

(1), a comparable reduction is not permitted, and the sentence imposed is lower than the low end of the amended

guideline range. Therefore, the defendant would not benefit from a recalculation of the guidelines.

Callie V.S. Granade U.S. 

District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2014.11.06 09:39:26 -06'00'

Case 1:11-cr-00270-CG-N Document 183 Filed 11/06/14 Page 1 of 1
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)

COVID- 19 Response and MEP Update

Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology

June 9, 2020

Carroll Thomas, Director

Director, NIST MEP

Ms. Bonnie Del Conte

MEP Center Director, CONNSTEP (Connecticut)

Mr. Mike O’Donnell

MEP Center Director, CIRAS (Iowa)
CONNSTEP - COVID-19 Response

Outreach

Identified 48 Manufacturers who Repurposed 

Operations to Produce PPE

$50K in Complimentary Projects for PPE 

Suppliers

Match PPE Suppliers with 1.4K Requests

Resource

Established Resource Page

6+ Webinars

Workplace Readiness Playbook

National & State Collaboration

Seven Northeast Governors Reopen Plan

Partner with state of CT

11K Requests for Masks in 3 Weeks

14K Requests for Thermometers in 4 Days

Media Representation
Engage. Educate. Embed.

“CIRAS was ahead of the curve on 

providing information and resources 

and I really appreciate it!”

“Thanks for the quick reply, its helpful 

(and very nice to know we’re not alone 

in figuring this out as we go).”

Photo Source: This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

1000+ Client Contacts 15+ Educational Guides 1.2M Face Shields Produced
#### Samuel B. Potter *et al.*plaintiffs *vs.*James R. Carreras, defendant.

An answer stricken out, on motion, as sham, is the same thing as if no answer had been put in. When the time to answer has expired the plaintiff can enter judgment as upon the defendant’s default. No order for judgment being necessary or proper, although one is entered, the plaintiff should appeal from the *order,*and not from the *judgment.*

(Before Monell and Gakvin, JJ.)

Heard October 9, 1865.

In this case a *motion*was made at special term, to strike out the defendant’s answer, as *sham.*The motion was granted, and an order entered, wherein it was ordered that the answer of the defendant be stricken out as false and sham, and that judgment be rendered for the plaintiff. Judgment was accordingly entered, reciting that the answer of the defendant had been stricken out as false and sham, and ordering judgment for the plaintiffs for $3046.85.

The defendant appealed from the *judgment.*Eo appeal was taken from the. *order*striking out the answer.

*630
      *A. H. Wagner, for*the appellant.

*BJ. W.. Chester,*for the respondents.

By the Court,

Monell, J.

The practice in this case is so clearly irregular, that we cannot have a moment’s hesitation in dismissing the appeal.

The motion was to strike out the answer, and it was stricken out; whereupon, if the time to answer had expired, the plaintiffs could enter judgment, as upon the default of the defendant. Ko order for judgment, upon striking out the answer, was proper or necessary. The answer being stricken out, it was as if no answer had been put in. Ko appeal lies from a judgment by default.

The proper practice was to appeal from the *order,*not from the judgment,- The case of *Briggs*v. *Bergen,*(23 *N. Y. Rep.*162,) is conclusive.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed.
#### DALEY v. ORT et al.

Civ. A. No. 51-499.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

May 24, 1951.

*152Edward J. Fox, William E. Weeks, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Paul T. Smith, Manuel Katz, Boston, Mass., for defendants.

FORD, District Judge.

This diversity case was heard on the return day of the summons to show cause on the plaintiff’s motion for an injunction seeking to restrain the individual defendant from alienating or encumbering shares of the individual defendant in several corporations.

The main claim in the case is one for damages for assault upon plaintiff and economic interference.

This suit attempts to equitably attach the defendant Isadore Ort’s shares in the named corporations to secure whatever judgment is obtained in the plaintiff’s suit for damages. If the suit could be called a creditor’s suit under § 3(7) of Ch. 214 of the Massachusetts General Laws (Ter.Ed.), this court has no jurisdiction. See Hollins v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co., 150 U.S. 371, 14 S.Ct. 127, 37 L.Ed. 1113; Smith v. Lloyd, D.C., 207 F. 815; and Mathews Slate Co. v. Mathews, C.C.Mass., 148 F. 490. However, I do not believe it is a creditor’s suit to reach and apply. Plaintiff is not a creditor seeking payment of a debt. Kilbourne v. Standard Stamp Affixer Co., 216 Mass. 118, 103 N.E. 469.

 If plaintiff seeks an equitable attachment, which I 'believe he does, I find no authority for such procedure before verdict under Massachusetts (cf. Rule 64, Fed. Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A.) or federal law. There is authority for an equitable attachment under Massachusetts law after verdict. (Cf. Mass.Gen.Laws (Ter.Ed.) Ch. 223, § 86A.) We have not that situation here.

The motion for an injunction must be denied.

The action will stand in this court as an action at law and there will be stricken from the complaint all paragraphs asking for injunctive relief. Under these circumstances there will be presented a claim upon which relief can be granted, jurisdiction being based on diversity of citizenship.