alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael S. Herring, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Omniture, Inc. (the “Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the Registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theRegistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: November 8, 2007 /s/ Michael S. Herring   Michael S. Herring
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

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of FGX International Holdings Limited (the "Company") for the
three and six months ended July 4, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony Di Paola, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



August 7, 2009

/s/ ANTHONY DI PAOLA Anthony Di Paola Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer and
principal accounting officer)


---



QuickLinks
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 5, 2023

NO. 03

- 23

- 00571

- CR

Ex parte Isaac Benavidez

APPEAL FROM THE 21ST DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA AND SMITH
DISM ISSED FO R WANT OF J URISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the trial court ’ s deni al of ap p ellant ’ s application fo r wr it of habeas corpus

.

Having reviewed the record, it appears th at the Cour t lac ks juris diction over this appeal

.

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent

and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 466 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 466

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 27, 2019.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3401) making emergency supplemental 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other 
purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, 
without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the 
Committee on Appropriations or her designee that the House concur in the Senate 
amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
without intervening motion.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### COMFY MFG. CO. v. DYER-GRUEN-JACKSON, Inc.

No. 1590.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

March 11, 1942.

Leonard L. Kalish, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Briesen & Schrenk and Fred A. Klein, all of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Howson & Howson, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Dexter N. Shaw and Charles H. Howson, Jr., both of Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel), for defendant.

KALODNER, District Judge.

This matter is before me on defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial.

The complaint states a cause of action for patent infringement by reason of the manufacture and sale of furniture slip covers by defendant, and sets out a demand for damages for patent infringment in the usual form.

Issue was joined by defendant’s answer denying infringement and asserting the invalidity of the patent in suit, whereupon the plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c, demanded a jury trial.

Defendant then moved, pursuant to Rule 39(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to strike plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial on the ground that the complaint alleges a cause of action in equity and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial as of right.

The contention that the action is equitable in nature is based upon the fact that after asking for “damages sustained” the complaint in conclusion asks “that plaintiff have such other and further relief as the court may deem meet and just”. The complaint does not contain a prayer for injunctive relief.

The queston becomes academic as to whether the inclusion in the complaint of the prayer for “such other and further relief * * * ” makes the action one in equity, inasmuch as the plaintiff has requested leave of court, under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to amend his complaint so as to omit entirely that portion of it which asks for “such other and further relief * *

Judge Kirkpatrick of this District, in Lieberman v. Merkin, 2 F.R.D. 315, opinion filed February 6, 1940, granted the leave to amend sought here, and his decision, with which I am in accord, is dispositive on that point.

Accordingly, leave is granted to the plaintiff to amend the complaint by striking therefrom the following: “(b) That plaintiff have such other and further relief as the court may deem meet and just.”

With the striking of that portion of the complaint, it is clear that the com*294plaint will disclose an action on the case to recover damages for infringement of the patent under R.S. § 4919, 35 U.S.C.A. § 67; and, as was stated in Bellavance v. Plastic-Craft Novelty Co., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 37, 38: “Such an action, of course, is one at law and would entitle the parties to a jury trial.”
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos FRANCO-VILLAGRAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-41155.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 20, 2006.

*442Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Carlos Franco-Villagran (Franco) appeals his sentence for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Franco challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The Government argues that the waiver provision in Franco’s plea agreement precludes his attack on the constitutionality of § 1326(b) and that, as a result of the waiver, Franco lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 1326(b). We assume, *arguendo*only, that the waiver does not bar the instant appeal.

Franco’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Franco contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Franco properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 29, 2007

Mr. Loren R. Smith

Kelly, Smith & Murrah, P.C.

4305 Yoakum Blvd.

Houston, TX 77006-5846

Mr. Thomas B. Cowart

Law Offices of Thomas B. Cowart, P.C.

Turley Law Center, Box 61

6440 N. Central Expressway

Dallas, TX 75206

Mr. Michael W. Eady

Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P. 

701 Brazos, Suite 1500

Austin Centre

Austin, TX 78701

RE:Case Number:  05-0791

Court of Appeals Number:  10-04-00080-CV

Trial Court Number:  249-87-98

Style:FORTIS BENEFITS

v.

VANESSA CANTU AND FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 05-0791Page 2**
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1445]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory 
committee meeting.

    Name: National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS), 
Full Committee Meeting.
    Time and Date:
    February 25, 2009, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. February 26, 2009, 10 a.m.-4 
p.m.
    Place: Hubert Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Room 505A, Washington, DC 20201.
    Status: Open.
    Purpose: At this meeting the Committee will hear presentations 
and hold discussions on several health data policy topics. On the 
morning of the first day the Committee will hear updates from the 
Department, the HHS Data Council, the Center for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services, as well as update on the transition to the new 
administration. There will also be an ONC update on the NHIN 
Conference. In the afternoon there will be a speaker on de-
identification of health data from the Center for Democracy and 
Technology.
    On the morning of the second day there will be a briefing on 
international terminology and an update on Health Statistics for the 
21st Century. There will also be an update from NCHS Board of 
Scientific Counselors and an overview of emerging and innovative 
sources of health data.
    The times shown above are for the full Committee meeting. 
Subcommittee breakout sessions can be scheduled for late in the 
afternoon of the first day and second day and in the morning prior 
to the full Committee meeting on the second day. Agendas for these 
breakout sessions will be posted on the NCVHS website (URL below) 
when available.
    For Further Information Contact: Substantive program information 
as well as summaries of meetings and a roster of committee members 
may be obtained from Marjorie S. Greenberg, Executive Secretary, 
NCVHS, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 2402, Hyattsville, 
Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458-4245. Information also is 
available on the NCVHS home page of the HHS Web site: http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/, where further information including an agenda 
will be posted when available.
    Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the 
CDC Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on (301) 458-4EEO (4336) 
as soon as possible.

    Dated: January 12, 2009.
James Scanlon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Data Policy, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
[FR Doc. E9-1445 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4151-05-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                          10,585
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,406,862
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,043
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,189
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,356,679
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,574,932
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,855,760
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,987
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,781,747
<SALES>                                        (15,748)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               (15,748)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,659
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,160,533
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,542,682)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,542,682)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOSEPH F. SPERA, D.M.D, §

§ No. 159, 2023

 Claimant-Below, §

 Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court 

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§ C.A. No.: N22A-08-001 (N)

MID-ATLANTIC DENTAL §

SERVICE HOLDINGS, §

§ 

 Employer-Below, §

Appellee. § 

Submitted: November 29, 2023

Decided: November 29, 2023

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and LEGROW, Justices.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we 

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of and for the 

reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its April 20, 2023 Memorandum Opinion 

affirming the Industrial Accident Board’s Decision Denying Appellant’s Petition to 

Determine Compensation Due.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Abigail M. LeGrow

Justice
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals. 

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number:

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/17/2015 3:02:04 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wilfredo Reina, Appellant.

Submitted July 15, 2013;

decided August 22, 2013

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 dismissed upon the ground that no application for leave to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 will lie from an order of a single Justice of the Appellate Division denying leave to appeal to that Court pursuant to CPL 460.15.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 32 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 32

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 9, 2019.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Ethics: Mr. Marchant.
    Committee on House Administration: Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of Patricia Bah, Appellant, v Mohammed Bah, Respondent.

[978 NYS2d 301]

In a family offense proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Mitek, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated December 3, 2012, which, after a hearing, in effect, denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and vacated an order of protection dated November 16, 2012.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“In a family offense proceeding, the petitioner has the burden *922of establishing, by a ‘fair preponderance of the evidence,’ that the charged conduct was committed as alleged in the petition” *(Matter of Cassie v Cassie,*109 AD3d 337, 340 [2013], quoting Family Ct Act § 832; *see Matter of Testa v Strickland,*99 AD3d 917, 917 [2012]). “ ‘The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factual issue to be resolved by the hearing court’ ” *(Matter of Kaur v Singh,*73 AD3d 1178, 1178 [2010], quoting *Matter of Creighton v Whitmore,*71 AD3d 1141, 1141 [2010]; *see*Family Ct Act §§ 812, 832; *Matter of Shields v Brown,*107 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2013]; *Matter of Yalvac v Yalvac,*83 AD3d 853, 854 [2011]; *Matter of Halper v Halper,*61 AD3d 687 [2009]; *Matter of Lallmohamed v Lallmohamed,*23 AD3d 562 [2005]), “whose ‘determination regarding the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal unless clearly unsupported by the record’ ” *(Matter of Kaur v Singh,*73 AD3d at 1178, quoting *Matter of Creighton v Whitmore,*71 AD3d at 1141; *see Matter of Shields v Brown, 107*AD3d at 1006; *Matter of Yalvac v Yalvac,*83 AD3d at 854; *Matter of Robbins v Robbins,*48 AD3d 822, 822 [2008]; *Matter of Phillips v Laland,*4 AD3d 529, 530 [2004]).

Here, the petitioner failed to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent committed the family offenses of menacing in the second degree or third degree *(see*Penal Law §§ 120.14, 120.15), criminal mischief in the fourth degree *(see*Penal Law § 145.00), harassment in the second degree *(see*Penal Law § 240.26), or disorderly conduct *(see*Penal Law § 240.20). The Family Court’s determination that the petitioner’s testimony was lacking in credibility, and that the respondent testified credibly, is entitled to great weight on appeal as it is not clearly unsupported by the record *(see generally Matter of Shields v Brown, 107*AD3d at 1006; *Matter of Yalvac v Yalvac,*83 AD3d at 854; *Matter of Kaur v Singh,*73 AD3d at 1178; *Matter of Creighton v Whitmore, 71*AD3d at 1141; *Matter of Robbins v Robbins,*48 AD3d at 822; *Matter of Phillips v Laland,*4 AD3d at 530). According, the Family Court properly, in effect, denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and vacated the order of protection dated November 16, 2012. Dickerson, J.P, Chambers, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1481]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,742]


American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., Detroit Forge Plant, 
Detroit, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, an investigation was initiated on December 19, 2008, in 
response to a petition filed by a Michigan State Workforce Office on 
behalf of workers of American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., Detroit Forge 
Plant, Detroit, Michigan.
    The worker group is included in an active certification which 
covers all workers of American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., Detroit 
Manufacturing Complex, Detroit, Michigan (TA-W-64,083, amended).
    Therefore, the petitioner has requested that the petition be 
withdrawn and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of January 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-1481 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P