alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Robert De Vaere, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Epimmune Inc.;

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 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 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 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.

Dated: May 13, 2005

                                /s/ Robert De Vaere
                                ----------------------------------------------
                                Robert De Vaere
                                Vice President, Finance and Administration and
                                Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc. (the“Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ted I. Kaminer, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc.        Dated: May 15, 2007 /s/ Ted I. Kaminer*   Ted I. Kaminer,    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)   *A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to us andwill be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
Exhibit 99.1

 

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant toSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

            I, Douglas A. Pertz, the Chief Executive Officer of IMC Global Inc., certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period endedSeptember 30, 2002 of IMC Global Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of IMC Global Inc.

 

              *Douglas A. Pertz *                  Douglas A. Pertz

November 13, 2002

*Return to IMC Global Inc. Form 10-Q*
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                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 Quarterly Report of Wolverine Tube, Inc. on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis J. Horowitz, Chief
Executive Officer of Wolverine Tube, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.


/s/  Dennis J. Horowitz


Dennis J. Horowitz
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
exv10w45



 





EXHIBIT 10.45




THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE ESCO TECHNOLOGIES INC.

2001 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN




WHEREAS, ESCO Technologies Inc. (“Company”) adopted the ESCO Technologies Inc. 2001 Stock Incentive
Plan (“Plan”); and



WHEREAS, the Company retained the right to amend the Plan pursuant to Section 13 thereof; and



WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in accordance with Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;



NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of October 3, 2007, the Plan is amended as follows:



1. The last sentence of Section 8(a) is deleted.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Amendment was adopted on the 3rd day of October, 2007.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID TIMMONS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-371

[June 28, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; William W. Haury, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 16-

11390CF10A, 16-115150CF10A, 16-12358CF10A, 16-12490CF10A and 

16-12829CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tom Wm. Odom, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-1238

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Sammy Jefferson, also known as * Bey Bey, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 14, 2009 Filed: July 28, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Sammy Jefferson appeals the 235-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to drug-cons piracy and drug-distribution charges. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuan t to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In two pro se briefs, Je fferson appears to contend that the appeal waiver in this case should be invalidated, because it is so broad as to be-2- unconstitutional. He also raises sentenci ng issues, ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, and prosecutorial-misconduct claims.
Jefferson entered his guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement in which he waived his right to bring a direct appeal, and his right to bring a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenge on any ground other than ineffectiv e assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. We will enforce the appeal waiverhere. The record reflects that (1) the court accepted Jefferson’s plea, applied the plea-agreement stipulations, and sentenced Jefferson within the resulting Guidelines range, thereby satisfying the conditions precedent to the appeal waiver; (2) Jeffe rson had read the plea agreement, had discussed it with his attorn ey, understood its terms, and was aware of the appeal waiver; (3) his arguments fall within the scope of the appeal waiver; and (4) no injustice would result from enforcing th e appeal waiver, because Jefferson was sentenced consistently with his stipulati ons in the negotiated plea agreement. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforceability of appeal waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena , 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).
Having reviewed the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal beyond the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss this a ppeal and grant defense counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari. Wealso deny Jefferson’s motions to dismiss counsel and to appoint new counsel.

______________________________
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2628 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on brass lamp-holder housings 

containing sockets. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2009 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on brass lampholder housings containing sockets. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BRASS LAMP-HOLDER HOUSINGS CONTAINING 

4 SOCKETS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.32 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 brass lamp-holder housings containing sockets) is amend8 ed by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2628 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 quarterly report of HearUSA, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gino Chouinard,
Co-Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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. of the Company.

| |                                                                                     
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Gino Chouinard
Gino Chouinard
Chief Financial Officer
HearUSA, Inc.
May 13, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000822418
<NAME>                        Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,049,376
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  888,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                   65,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,975,410
<PP&E>                                         4,456,849
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,030,018
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,433,546
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          960,798
<BONDS>                                        16,953
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    104
<COMMON>                                       1,944
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,453,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,433,546
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               824,292
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  560,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               618,284
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (8,929)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (345,824)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (345,824)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (345,824)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.05) <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.05) <F2>
<FN>
<F1> -- This amount represents Basic  Earnings per Share in accordance  with the
requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting Standards No. 128 - "Earnings
per Share."
<F2> -- This amount represents Diluted Earnings per Share in accordance with the
requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting Standards No. 128 - "Earnings
per Share." 
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
  
 Certificate
        of Chief Financial Officer
 **Section
        1350 Certification**
  
 In
        connection with the annual report of Nano-Proprietary, Inc. (the “Company”) on
        Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas P, Baker,
        the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
        Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of
        2002, that:
 
 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Date:
                  July 27, 2007
              /s/
                  Douglas P. BakerDouglas
                  P. BakerChief
                  Financial
                  Officer
#### Terry Lee HUNT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Todd PINION, Superintendent, Piedmont Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 06-6619.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 4, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 24, 2006.

Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., The Law Office of Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Terry Lee Hunt seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hunt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Escenario: Contratistas comportándose mal

Janice, una miembra femenina del equipo de helitack, se queja con su compañero de trabajo, 

Bob, sobre un incidente que ocurrió la noche anterior. Ella tuvo una discusión con un 

empleado de una companía de helicópteros contratada porque él le estaba pidiendo que fuera 

al bar con él. Parecía que el mecánico había estado bebiendo; aunque no estaba borracho. 

Esta no era la primera vez que él le pedía salir y Janice le había dicho repetidamente que no 

estaba interesada.

Preguntas de discusión:

Pregunta #1: ¿Qué debería hacer Bob?

Pregunta #2: ¿Se requiere que nuestros contratistas sigan los mismos estándares de 

conducta que los empleados del BLM?
Exhibit 10.1


 


	
  Named Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  2008 Base Salary

  	
   

  	
  2008 Bonus Target

  	
   

  
	
  Henri A. Termeer

  Chief Executive Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,580,250

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,896,300

  	
   

  
	
  Earl M. Collier, Jr.

  Executive Vice President

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  558,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  480,000

  	
   

  
	
  Alan E. Smith, Ph.D.

  Senior Vice President; Chief Scientific Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  505,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  385,000

  	
   

  
	
  Peter Wirth

  Executive Vice President; Chief Legal Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  735,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  480,000

  	
   

  
	
  Michael S. Wyzga

  Executive Vice President; Chief Financial Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  510,000

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  480,000
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      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 result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   | /s/              David L. Weinberg |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------|
|   |   | David L. Weinberg             |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|   |   | May 9, 2006                        |
#### Burnett Williams, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 383]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered October 22, 2012, which granted the motion of defendant New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) to correct the rate of interest on the judgment from 9% to 3% pursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1212 (6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is uncontested that the rate of interest against NYCTA may be no more than 3% (Public Authorities Law § 1212 [6]). As defendants were found jointly and severally liable for 100% of the judgment, the proper interest rate was 3% *(see Bello v New York City Tr. Auth.,*50 AD3d 511 [1st Dept 2008]; *Klos v New York City Tr. Auth.,*240 AD2d 635, 638 [2d Dept 1997], *lv dismissed*91 NY2d 846 [1997]). Moreover, defendants assert that NYCTA is bound to indemnify the City pursuant to the lease relating to the subject property. Plaintiff does not deny this assertion, and thus, NYCTA is the real party in interest, and the court properly recalculated the interest rate at 3% *(see Ebert v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*82 NY2d 863 [1993]). Finally, as the rate of interest was not argued by the parties or decided by the court, and the rate is mandated by statute, this ministerial error may be corrected even after the underlying substantive appellate process is complete *(see Kiker v Nassau County,*85 NY2d 879 [1995]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Richter and Feinman, JJ.