alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, David W. Wehlmann, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Grey Wolf, Inc; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 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 flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and34-47986];  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s quarter ended September 30, 2004 that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date:  November 9, 2004 By:  /s/ David W. Wehlmann    David W. Wehlmann    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 21

LONDON PACIFIC GROUP LIMITED
Subsidiary Listing as of March 18, 2002


London Pacific Group Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

  Berkeley International Capital Limited (Guernsey, Channel Islands corporation)

  Berkeley International Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

  London Pacific Advisers Limited (United Kingdom corporation)

  London Pacific Assurance Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

     LPAL Investments Limited (Guernsey, Channel Islands corporation)

  London Pacific Technologies, Inc. (Delaware corporation)

     LP Advisors, Inc. (California corporation)

        Advisory Insurance Services of Texas (Texas corporation)

        London Pacific Advisory Services, Inc.* (California corporation)

        London Pacific Securities, Inc.* (Delaware corporation)

           LPA Insurance Agency, Inc.* (California corporation)

  London Pacific Trust Company Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)

     Berkeley (USA) Holdings Limited (California corporation)

        Berkeley Capital Management (California corporation)

        Berkeley Institutional Investment, Inc. (California corporation)

        Berkeley International Capital Corporation (California corporation)

        London Pacific Life & Annuity Company (North Carolina corporation)

           LPIMC Insurance Marketing Services (California corporation)

        North American Fiduciary Services, Inc. (California corporation)

     London Pacific Secretaries Limited (Jersey, Channel Islands corporation)



_____________
Notes:
(1)   Each indentation reflects another tier of ownership.

(2)   All subsidiaries are 100% owned and are listed above,  except that several
      subsidiaries that in the aggregate are insignificant have been omitted.

*     Does business under the name "London Pacific Advisors."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the financial
statements for Eagle Insured L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000821203
<NAME>                        Eagle Insured L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,335,418
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,814,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,066,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              157,696
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,909,128
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,066,824
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,441,682
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   123,404
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,318,278
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,318,278
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
                                               


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11861]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,646]


Honeywell International, Olathe, KS; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 20, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Honeywell 
International, Olathe, Kansas.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 29th day of April 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-11861 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### William Ortiz, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

[965 NYS2d 710]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered February 23, 2012, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a cause of action under the State and City Human Rights Laws *(see*Executive Law § 296; Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107; *cf. Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P.,*67 AD3d 140 [1st Dept 2009]). There is no dispute that because plaintiff was not reinstated as a police officer until after one year from his voluntary retirement, he was not entitled to receive reinstatement at his previous salary and seniority levels. Although he alleged that his application for reinstatement, made within one year of his retirement, was not promptly expedited, he did not specifically allege that the application was intentionally delayed or that racial discrimination was the reason for the failure to expedite the application *(see e.g. McDowell v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys., Inc.,*788 F Supp 2d 78, 81-83 [ED NY 2011]).

Concur—Tom, J.P, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Abdus-Salaam and Gische, JJ.,

dissent in a memorandum by Abdus-Salaam, J., as follows: I would affirm.

In this litigation by a Hispanic New York City police officer alleging discrimination based upon national origin, the complaint includes allegations that after plaintiff retired, he timely sought reinstatement; that although he timely sought reinstatement within a year of retirement he was reinstated without retaining his seniority and salary while similarly situated Caucasian officers were reinstated with their seniority and salary; and that these acts by the City of New York were in violation of his rights pursuant to the State and City Human Rights Laws *(see*Executive Law § 296; Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107). “On a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, the court will ‘accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffi ] the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory’ ” *(Nonnon v City of New York,*9 NY3d 825, 827 [2007]). Additionally, “employment discrimination cases are themselves generally reviewed under notice pleading standards” *(Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P.,*67 AD3d 140, 145 [1st Dept 2009]). In “[a]p-*675plying these liberal pleading standards” *(id.*at 145), the motion court properly found that plaintiff has stated causes of action for employment discrimination under both the State and City Human Rights Laws.
Exhibit 32.1

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




       In connection  with the Annual Report of Berkeley  Technology  Limited on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Arthur I.  Trueger,  as Executive
Chairman of the registrant,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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
registrant.



Date:  March 31, 2009                            By:    /s/  Arthur I. Trueger

                                                        Arthur I. Trueger
                                                        Executive Chairman
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00291

- CR

R

AFAEL V ILLARD

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1474527D)

September 26, 2019

Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

ju risdict ion

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
|   | (a)                                                  |   | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June      30, 2009 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange      Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                 |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|   | (b)                                                  |   | the      information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company.                                                                                                                                        |
|   |                                                 |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
|   | /s/ Garrett E. Pierce                           |   |
|   | Garrett      E. Pierce                          |   |
|   | Vice      Chairman and Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|   | July      29, 2009                              |   |
|   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-18-1996             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             JUL-17-1996
<CASH>                                           2,276                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,152                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,482                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     81,019                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               198,372                       0
<PP&E>                                          92,379                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,134                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 846,260                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,867                       0
<BONDS>                                        206,336                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             1                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     474,500                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   846,260                       0
<SALES>                                        290,406                 281,621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               290,406                 281,621
<CGS>                                          230,808                 226,626
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  273,589                 304,358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,388                   1,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,619                  32,808
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,810                 (57,258)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,432                 (21,855)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,378                 (35,403)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,378                 (35,403)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1,378                 (35,403)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CertificationPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code)

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Wm. Stacy Locke, President andChief Executive Officer of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation (the “Company”),hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)           theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Dated:     August 4,  2005 | /s/ Wm. Stacy Locke                    |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                     | Wm. Stacy Locke                        |
|                                                     | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER(pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C.§1350))**

Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), theundersigned, Leonard P. Shaykin, Chairman of the Board of Directors and ChiefExecutive Officer of Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) doeshereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

(a)                                  theAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedDecember 27, 2006 of the Company (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and

(b)                                 theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 6,2007
|        | /s/ LEONARD P.  SHAYKIN             |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   | Leonard P.  Shaykin                 |
|   | Chairman of the  Board of Directors |
|   | and Chief  Executive Officer        |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc.and will be retained by Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. Thiscertification “accompanies” the Form 10-K to which it relates, isnot deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference intoany filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after thedate of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage contained in such filing.

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leigh Morse, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 406]

*570Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obús, J.), rendered July 19, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of scheme to defraud in the first degree, and sentencing her to a term of four months of intermittent imprisonment to be served on weekends, five years’ probation and restitution in the amount of $1.65 million, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s dismissal motion, which merely made reference to unspecified “elements,” failed to preserve her claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove her guilt of scheme to defraud in the first degree *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. Defendant was an employee of an art gallery that embezzled money from owners of artworks consigned to the gallery. The evidence established both that defendant participated in a unitary scheme to defraud the victims, which included closely related acts of nondisclosure and active misrepresentation, and that the gallery’s owner, with whom defendant acted in concert, obtained property as a result of that scheme *(see*Penal Law § 190.65 [2]; *People v First Meridian Planning Corp.,*86 NY2d 608 [1995]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s arguments concerning these issues.

The court properly determined the restitution amount without holding a hearing pursuant to Penal Law § 60.27. Defendant’s request for such a hearing was only connected to her argument that restitution should be determined based on her personal financial gain, which she believed to be somewhere between $150,000 and $300,000 but had been unable to precisely fix the amount. Once the court decided that it would base restitution on the victims’ actual losses, there was no factual challenge to the People’s calculation based on the amounts invoiced for the art works. The calculation was based on evidence already in the trial record. *(People v Consalvo,*89 NY2d 140, 144 [1996]). The court, exercising its discretion based on consideration of all of the circumstances, then imposed a restitution amount that was less than a fourth of the People’s calculation of loss. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Acosta, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.