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



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, John Okubo, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q/A of Bay View Capital Corporation;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;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and we have: 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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) 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; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) 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. Date: May 10, 2005 /s/ John OkuboJohn Okubo
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer 35
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 206 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify that artificial 

intelligence and machine learning technologies can qualify as a practitioner eligible to prescribe drugs if authorized by the State involved 

and approved, cleared, or authorized by the Food and Drug Administration, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

clarify that artificial intelligence and machine learning 

technologies can qualify as a practitioner eligible to prescribe drugs if authorized by the State involved and 

approved, cleared, or authorized by the Food and Drug 

Administration, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Healthy Technology 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 206 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRESCRIPTION OF DRUGS BY ARTIFICIAL INTEL2 LIGENCE OR MACHINE LEARNING TECH3 NOLOGIES. 

4 Section 503(b) of Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

5 Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)) is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following: 

7 ‘‘(6) In this subsection, the term ‘practitioner li8 censed by law to administer such drug’ includes artificial 

9 intelligence and machine learning technology that are— 

10 ‘‘(A) authorized pursuant to a statute of the 

11 State involved to prescribe the drug involved; and 

12 ‘‘(B) approved, cleared, or authorized under 

13 section 510(k), 513, 515, or 564.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Form 10-QSB of Kent  Financial  Services,  Inc. for the three months ended March
31,  1999 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000316028
<NAME>                                         KENT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS                  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999 
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         6,021
<SECURITIES>                                   6,911
<RECEIVABLES>                                    494
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              13,426
<PP&E>                                         1,696
<DEPRECIATION>                                   486
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                14,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,715
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         199
<OTHER-SE>                                    12,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  14,847
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,419
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,093
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                64
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  262
<INCOME-TAX>                                      14
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              248
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     248
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .12 
                                   


</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION

I, Douglas S. Levell, certify that:


1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Argenta Systems, Inc.
(formerly XIT Solutions.com, Inc.)

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 annual
report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15 d-14) for the registrant and we have:

     (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
     material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
     subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
     particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
     prepared;

     (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
     and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
     annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     (c)  presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
     evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors:

     (a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

6.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

                                 /s/ DOUGLAS S. LEVELL
                              ---------------------------
                                   Douglas S. Levell
                                   Chief Executive and Financial Officer

Date: March 29, 2004


<PAGE>
VIRGINIA:

 In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court 

Building in the City of Richmond, on Friday, the 21st day of 

July, 1995. 

James D. Parker, as General 

 Partner of Parker Industries, Appellant, 

 against Record No. 942076 

 Circuit Court No. CL93-3854 

A.C. Miller, et al., Appellees. 

 Upon an appeal from a judgment rendered by the 

Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach on the 22nd 

day of September, 1994. 

 Upon review of the record, briefs, and argument of 

counsel, the Court is of the opinion that there is error in the 

judgment of the trial court. 

 A.C. Miller applied for and received a variance from the 

Virginia Beach Board of Zoning Appeals for the construction of 

a convenience store on a lot with approximately 6,000 square 

feet less area than required by the city's zoning ordinance for 

this use. Notice of the hearing to consider Miller's 

application for the variance was posted adjacent to Miller's 

property and was published in a newspaper of general 

circulation in Virginia Beach, pursuant to the city's zoning 

ordinance. However, no written notice was given to James D. 

Parker, the owner of an abutting lot, as required by Code 

§§ 15.1-431 and -495. Lawrence Transfer & Storage Corp. v. 

Board of Zoning Appeals, 229 Va. 568, 571, 331 S.E.2d 460, 462 

(1985). Therefore, the Board did not have the authority to 
- 2 - 

grant the variance sought by Miller. 

 Contrary to Miller's assertion, the trial court had 

jurisdiction to consider Parker's challenge to the Board's 

decision. Parker's petition for a writ of certiorari satisfied 

the requirements for circuit court review of the Board's 

decision because Parker was a party aggrieved by the decision 

of the Board and the petition specified the grounds on which he 

was aggrieved and was filed within 30 days of the date of the 

Board's decision. Code § 15.1-497; Board of Supervisors v. 

Board of Zoning Appeals, 225 Va. 235, 238, 302 S.E.2d 19, 20-21 

(1983). See also Friends of Clark Mountain Found., Inc. v. 

Board of Supervisors, 242 Va. 16, 21, 406 S.E.2d 19, 21 (1991). 

 The failure to specifically name the Board as a defendant 

within the 30-day period did not divest the trial court of 

jurisdiction because that time period is not a statute of 

limitations. Friends of Clark Mountain, 242 Va. at 20, 406 

S.E.2d at 21. 

 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, 

the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals is vacated, the 

variance is invalidated without prejudice, and the application 

is dismissed. 

 This order shall be certified to the said circuit court 

and shall be published in the Virginia Reports. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 
- 3 - 

David B. Beach, Clerk
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DAVID W. MAYBERRY,

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2011-7136 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in case no. 09-2229, Judge Alan G. 

Lance, Sr. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

KENNETH M. CARPENTER, Carpenter, Chartered, 

Topeka, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant. 

NICHOLAS JABBOUR, Trial Attorney, Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for 

respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were TONY 

WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, 

Director, and MARTIN F. HOCKEY, Assistant Director. Of 

counsel on the brief were DAVID J. BARRANS, Deputy 

Assistant General Counsel, and MICHAEL G. DAUGHERTY, 

Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, 

of Washington, DC. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, MOORE, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

May 11, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
##### 



Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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.
 /s/ Glen R. Gilbert

Name: Glen R. Gilbert
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: August 9, 2006
#### Browning *v.*Reed.

*(Circuit Court, D. Indiana.*

June 19, 1889.)

Removal of Causes—Time of Application.

Under act Cong. March 8, 1887, as corrected by act Aug. 18, 1888, requiring an application for removal from state to federal court tobe made at or before the time the defendant “is required by the laws of the state or rule of the state court in which the suit is brought to answer or plead, ” where, on the third day of the term, defendant is ruled to answer, and files a plea in abatement on the next day, which is overruled on demurrer on the sixth day, a petition for removal, not filed until the seventh day, is too late, even if the plea in abatement suspended the rule to answer, as such rule became operative on the overruling of the plea.

At Law. On motion to remand.

*Friedly & Giles,*for plaintiff. *Dunn & Dunn*and *J. W. Buskirk,*for defendant.

Woods, J.

This case comes from the Lawrence circuit court, and the motion to remand is made upon the ground that the petition for removal was not presented in time. The record shows that the defendant was duly served with process in the customary form, and on the return-day appeared specially, and moved the court to set aside the summons and return. On the next day—being the third day of the term—the court overruled this motion, and ruled the defendant to answer. On the next day the defendant filed a plea in abatement, to which on the next day the plaintiff demurred, and on the next day this demurrer was sustained. This was on Saturday, the sixth day of the term; and on Monday, the seventh day, the petition for removal was presented. The rule to answer, as entered on the third day of the term, required an answer on the next day, and on that day the application for removal ought to have been presented, unless the filing of the plea in abatement operated to extend the time. Whether or not a plea in abatement has such effect, it is not necessary in this case to decide. If so, it must be upon the theory that, in respect to the time when a removal can be had, the plea suspends the operation of the rule to answer; and, conceding, but not deciding, this to be so, nevertheless, when the plea was overruled on the sixth day of the term, the rule to answer became at once again operative, and, if a removal was desired, it should have been then applied for, and the delay until the next day of the term was, I think, fatal to the right. By the act of March 3, 1887, as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, the application must be made at or before the time the defendant “is required by the laws of the state or rule of the state court in which the suit is brought to answer or plead to the declaration or complaint of the plaintiff.” The conclusion reached seems to be supported by the decision of Judge Blodgett in *Kaitel*v. *Wylie,*38 Fed. Rep. 865. See, also, *Dixon*v. *Telegraph Co.,*Id. 377, and *Hurd*v. *Gere,*Id. 537. For the statutes of Indiana in respect to the subject, reference is made to *McKeen*v. *Ives.*35 Fed. Rep. 801. The motion is therefore sustained,
IN	THE	UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT	FOR	THE

SOUTHERN	DISTRICT	OF	ALABAMA

SOUTHERN	DIVISION

UNITED	STATES	OF	AMERICA )

v. ) CRIMINAL	NO.	11-00302

CLAUDIA	MAGDELENA	PEREZ-LEAL, )

Defendant. )

ORDER

Defendant	Claudia	Perez-Leal	has	filed	a “Motion	for	Downward	Departure”	

“pursuant	to	the	United	States	Sentencing	Guidelines	3E1.1	Application	Notes:		1(g)	

post-offense	rehabilitative	efforts.”		(Doc.	145.)		The	Sentencing	Guidelines	are	used	

in	determining	the	sentence	to	impose.		Once	a	sentence	has	been	imposed	the	Court	

is	without	authority	to	reduce	it	except	for	those	reasons	listed	in	18	U.S.C.	§	3582.			

Post-offense	rehabilitation	is	not	one	of	those	reasons.		Therefore,	the	motion	is	

DENIED.

DONE and	ORDERED this	the	30th day	of	June, 2016.

s/	Charles	R.	Butler,	Jr.

Senior	United	States	District	Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00302-CB-N Document 146 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.16
(b)
 AMENDMENT TO
THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
     1.
    
    The following sentence is hereby added to the end of Section 3(b) of the Agreement:
 th
 2.
    
    In the first sentence of Section 8(c)(ii) of the Agreement, the phrase for the remainder of
the calendar year in which the Termination of Employment occurs and during the two succeeding
calendar years, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following phrase:
  3.
    
    The last sentence (set forth below) of Section 8(c)(ii) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in
its entirety:
  4.
    
    The last sentence of Section 8(e) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:




---



##### 



5.
    
    The following shall be added as a new Section 20 of the Agreement:
 Conditions to Payment and Acceleration; Section 409A of the Code provided however
 6.
    
    This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under and construed in accordance with the
laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
 7.
    
    Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement is hereby confirmed in all respects.
  2




---



##### 



MYLAN INC./s/ Rodney L. PiattBy:  Rodney L. PiattTitle:
    Chairman, Compensation Committee/s/ Robert J. CouryRobert J. Coury 3
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2049 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2049

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
Treasury, Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Salaries and 
                     Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
Treasury, Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Salaries and 
                     Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              TREASURY, OFFICE OF TERRORISM AND FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE, 
              SALARIES AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Treasury, 
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Salaries and Expenses 
for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $159,000,00.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1903 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint Items, Capitol 

Building for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Joint 

Items, Capitol Building for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 JOINT ITEMS, CAPITOL BUILDING FOR FIS5 CAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Joint Items, Capitol Building for fiscal year 2024 

9 may not exceed $42,579,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB