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



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350 AS
ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXELY
ACT OF 2002



I, Steve O’Loughlin, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the report on Form 10-K of Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: July 13, 2020 | By: | /s/ Steve O’Loughlin                                                                              
|-------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Steve O’Loughlin                                                                                  
|                     |     | Principal Financial Officer
(Duly Authorized Officer, 
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE N ove m be r 18, 200 5 S es sio n AU TO C RED IT OF NA SHV ILLE v. MEL ISSA WIMM ER Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Su m ner County No. 23298-C C . L. Rogers, Judge

No. M2005- 00978-COA-R 3-CV - F iled on Au gust 31, 2006

F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R . , J

. , d i s s en t i n g. I re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt f ro m th e ma

jority ’s c on c lusio n th at A uto Cr e dit faile d to g iveMs. Wimme r r e a so na

bleno tic e of

thesc he du le d s a le of

thec oll a te ra l. The Uni fo rm C o m merc ial Code provides that a person “ notifies” or “ g ives” a notice or no tif ic a tio n to a no the r “ by

takin g su c h s te ps a s may be re a so na

bly re qu ir e d to inform th e ot he r i n ordinary course whether

or not such other

actua lly comes to know of it.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 47- 1- 201 (26). Auto Credit place d the notice in the U. S. Mail with suff i ci ent pos tag e prope rly

addre ssed t o t h e c u rr e n th o m e a d d r e s s o f M s . W i m m e r . T h e n o t i c e w a s p l a c e d i n t h e U

. S

. M a i l t w e n t y d a ys prior to the s ch eduled sale of the c ollatera l. The UCC deems ten day s a re asonable time for no tif ic a tio n. Te nn . Co deAn n. § 47 -9 -6 12 (b ). Whe n the sa le oc c ur re d, Au to C re dit

wa s u na wa

reMs. Wim mer ha d not rec eived the notice

. The fa ct Auto Credit was una war e whe n the sale occurr ed that Ms. Wim mer had not rece ived theno tice is si gnific a nt b e c aus e it d ist ing uis he s th is c a se fr om Mallicoat v. Volunteer Financ e & Loan Corp., 415 S.W .2d 347 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1966), cited by the majority . I n Mallicoat , the cr editor knew prior to the sale t h at the debtor had not re ceive d notice. The Mallicoat court found that signific ant. “[Volunteer F inance ] notonly failed to show a

complian ce wi t h t h e Act but . . . the re c or d a ff irmativ e ly

sh ow s a la c k o f c omp lianc e a nda c on sc iou s d isr e g ardof

thede bto r’ s rig ht t o notice.” Mallicoat , 415 S.W .2d at 350

. As the majority

notes, proof of

actua l notice to or receipt by the debtor is not require d, R & J of Tenne ssee, Inc. v. Blanke nship-Melton Real Estate, I nc ., 166 S.W .3d 185, 205 (Tenn. Ct. App. 20 04 ), a ndthec re dit or

is n ot “ fo rc e d to tak e respo ns ibi lit y fo r l os t mail o r the de bto r’ s r e fu sa l to acc ept prope rly

delivere d mail.” Id . A lth ou g h it wo uldbe a n e nti re ly

dif fe rent scen ario if

Au to-2-

Cr e dit ha d le arn e d p ri or

to the sa le that Ms . Wi mm er had no t re c e ive d n oti c e , a s w a s th e c a se in Mallicoat , that isn’t the case here

. I n my view, Auto Credit ac ted in g ood faith pursuant to T enn. Code Ann. § 47-1-203, in a commerc ially

rea sonable manne r pursuant to Tenn. Code A nn. § 47-9-607 and -610, and the steps it took constit uted re asonable notification pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-61 2 (b ) an d Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-47- 1-201 (26)

. F or thefo re g oin g re a so ns I

wo ulda ff

irm th e tria l c ou rt
.

____________________________________ FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR ., J UDGE
|                             |   |                         |   |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                             |   |                         |   |   |
|  August      14, 2009  |   | /s/      Michael Sweet       |   |   |
|                             |   |                         |   |   |
|                             |   | Michael      Sweet           |   |   |
|                             |   | Chief      Financial Officer |   |   |
|                             |   |                         |   |   |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       8,729,697
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  321,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,365,488
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,402,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,021,947
<BONDS>                                      6,700,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       121,170
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,559,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,402,613
<SALES>                                      3,050,969
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,050,969
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,967,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             160,722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 84,342
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,342
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2044 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2044

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
        Agencies, National Mediation Board 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 Related 
        Agencies, National Mediation Board 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 RELATED AGENCIES, 
              NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Related Agencies, 
National Mediation Board for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$13,800,000.
                                 <all>
```
**                                                                  EXHIBIT    32.1**

----

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2396 

To amend the Financial Stability Act of 2010 to require the Financial 

Stability Oversight Council to monitor social media platforms for indicators of a bank run or financial panic, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. TORRES of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Financial Stability Act of 2010 to require 

the Financial Stability Oversight Council to monitor social media platforms for indicators of a bank run or 

financial panic, 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 ‘‘Social Media Bank 

5 Run Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2396 IH

1 SEC. 2. MONITORING SOCIAL MEDIA FOR FINANCIAL IN2 STABILITY. 

3 The Financial Stability Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5311 

4 et seq.) is amended— 

5 (1) in section 102(a), by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(8) SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM.—The term ‘so8 cial media platform’ means a platform provided over 

9 the internet (including a website or online applica10 tion) that— 

11 ‘‘(A) permits a person to create an account 

12 or a profile for the purpose of generating, shar13 ing, and viewing user-generated content 

14 through such account or profile; 

15 ‘‘(B) enables users to generate content and 

16 share such content so that such content can be 

17 viewed by other users of the platform; 

18 ‘‘(C) enables users to view content gen19 erated by other users of the platform; and 

20 ‘‘(D) enables users to participate in social 

21 networking with other users of the platform.’’; 

22 and 

23 (2) in section 112(a)(2)— 

24 (A) in subparagraph (M)(ii) by striking 

25 ‘‘and’’ at the end; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 2396 IH

1 (B) in subparagraph (N)(vi)(III) by strik2 ing the period and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

3 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(O) monitor social media platforms for 

5 any indicator of— 

6 ‘‘(i) a potential bank run; or 

7 ‘‘(ii) financial panic at a level that po8 tentially threatens the financial stability of 

9 the United States.’’. 

10 SEC. 3. STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON FI11 NANCIAL INSTABILITY. 

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Financial Stability Oversight 

13 Council shall conduct a study to determine if the content 

14 on social media platforms effects financial panic and bank 

15 runs. 

16 (b) REPORT.—The Council shall submit a report to 

17 the Congress containing all findings and determinations 

18 made in carrying out the study required under subsection 

19 (a). 

20 (c) SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM DEFINED.—The term 

21 ‘‘social media platform’’ shall have the meaning given to 

22 such term in section 102(a) of the Financial Stability Act 

23 of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5311). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### In the Matter of Elvin Lebron, Appellant, v Brion D. Travis, as Chair of the New York State Division of Parole, Respondent.

Submitted January 12, 2009;

decided February 24, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Parker v. Town of Concord *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois.*

July 22, 1889.)

Equity—Answer—Dismissal.

Where an answer to a bill in equity completely denies all its equities, and complainant has not met these denials with any proof, nor made any issue by replication, the bill will be dismissed.

In Equity. Bill for relief.

*Bailey &*Sedgwick, for complainant.

*Bisbee, Ahrens & Decker,*for defendants.

Blodgett, J.,

*(orally.)*This is a bill filed by the complainant, as a holder of the bonds of the town of Concord, for relief against the town and the railroad company. The allegations are, substantially, that in 1869 the town of Concord voted $25,000 to aid in the construction of the Chicago, Danville & Vincennes Railroad, and subsequently issued bonds in payment of this subscription; that the complainant has become the holder of 20 of these bonds for $1,000 each by purchase for value in the market, and that the courts have held these bonds void. The complainant, as such bondholder, now seeks to be subrogated to the place of the railroad company as the payee of the subscription, with the averment that the issue of void bonds did not pay the indebtedness created by the subscription, it being averred that the railroad was completed according to the terms of the subscription, and that, as the complainant now stands in the position by virtue of being the owner in good faith of the bonds from the town, he is entitled to relief against the town by a decree requiring the town to pay him the amount of the 20 bonds which he holds in satisfaction of the subscription. The case is brought to hearing on bill and answer.

The answer denies many of the substantial allegations in the bill, such as the completion of the railroad according to the terms of the subscription; and the fact that the railroad was located as was required by the terms of the subscription; and generally that the railroad company has failed to perform the conditions upon which the subscription was voted. It seems to me, without considering any other question, that as the answer completely denies the equities of the bill, and the complainant has *719not met those denials with any proof, or even made an issue thereon by replication, the hill must be dismissed for want of equity. A decree will be entered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF UNITED STATES
FILTER CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          58,847
<SECURITIES>                                       417
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,039,825
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (46,762)
<INVENTORY>                                    492,051
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,027,797
<PP&E>                                       1,289,537
<DEPRECIATION>                               (292,929)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,688,255
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,157,515
<BONDS>                                      1,548,918
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,618
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,456,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,688,255
<SALES>                                      1,119,331
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,119,331
<CGS>                                          788,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  788,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,120
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,648
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (175,001)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (19,604)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (155,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (155,397)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.98)
        

</TABLE>
11753.

#### Dillard *et al. v.*The State.

Decided December 16, 1920.

Indictment for burglary; from Rockdale superior court — Judge Hutcheson. June 25, 1920.

*J. B. Irwin, G. B. Vaughn,*for plaintiffs in error.

*George M. Napier, solicitor-general, William F. Buchanan,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. “ It must affirmatively appear from the bill of exceptions or the entries thereon, or the record, that the bill of exceptions was presented within the time prescribed by law.” *Evans*v. *State,*112 *Ga.*763 (38 S. E. 78); *Jones*v. *State,*146 *Ga.*8(1) (90 S. E. 280).

2. *“*Where it does not affirmatively appear from the record that the bill of exceptions was tendered upon a date prior to the date of the judge’s certificate, it will be presumed that the certificate bears the date upon which the bill of exceptions was tendered, and the writ of error will be dismissed if a tender on that date was not within the time required by law.” *Jones*v. *State,*supra.

3. In this case it does not affirmatively appear from the bill of exceptions or the entries thereon, or the record, that the bill of exceptions was tendered to the trial judge within the time prescribed by law, to wit, 20 days from the date of the overruling of the motion for a new trial, the judgment complained of. The bill of exceptions must therefore be

*Dismissed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., coneur.*
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 13

- 00584

- CR IN RE David KARA Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: August 30, 2013
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED Relator David Kara filed this pro se petition for writ of mandamus on August 26 , 2013, complaining of the trial court’s order releasing relator on personal bond rather than dismissing the prosecution after granting relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus . Relator has been appointed trial counsel to represent him in connection with the criminal charges pending against him. We conclude that any original proceeding on the issue rais ed should be presented by relator’s trial counsel. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro

se mandamus petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. See id .; see also

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 172064, styled The State of Texas v. David Kara , pending in the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Raymond Angelini presiding.04

- 13

- 00584

- CR Gray v. Shipley , 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Te x. App.

— Houston [1 st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a). Additionally, relator requested leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus . No leave is required to fil e a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52. Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is denied as moot.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1986 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health 

and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute 

of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases 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 Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1986 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH NA4 TIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUS5 CULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES FOR 

6 FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Health and Human Services, Na10 tional Institutes of Health National Institute of Arthritis 

11 and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases for fiscal year 

12 2024 may not exceed $605,065,000. 

Æ 


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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0000317781
<NAME>    ANCHOR PACIFIC UNDERWRITERS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,018,394
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,749,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                    45,864
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,986,822
<PP&E>                                       3,293,753
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,544,716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,591,329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,856,296
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        94,201
<OTHER-SE>                                     432,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,591,329
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,182,125
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,006,573
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 58,614
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,220
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,394
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,394
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>