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



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Paul G. Saari, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Atlantis Plastics, 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.  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize, and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting. Date: March 26, 2004
    
    /s/ Paul G. SaariPaul G. SaariSenior Vice President, Finance and Chief FinancialOfficer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 -55-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

GARY D. WOLFE AND MARY O. WOLFE, HUSBAND AND WIFE,

Petitioners

v.

READING BLUE MOUNTAIN AND NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 586 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

IN RE: CONDEMNATION OF LANDS OF

GARY D. WOLFE AND MARY O. WOLFE POTTSVILLE PIKE, MUHLENBERG

TOWNSHIP

PETITION OF: GARY D. WOLFE AND MARY O. WOLFE, HUSBAND AND WIFE :

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 587 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of June, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED

, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the

remaining issue. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Whether the Commonwealth Court erred by reversing the [trial court] where it held that the taking at issue was for a public purpose and based its decision on caselaw addressing the public use requirement for a condemnation under eminent domain powers created prior to the passage of the Property Rights Protection Act, 26 Pa. [C.S.] § 201, et seq.
#### In the Matter of 91st Street Crane Collapse Litigation. Donald R. Leo, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and New York Crane & Equipment Corp. et al., Appellants. Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp., Third-Party *477Plaintiff, v Sorbara Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (And All Related Actions.)

[976 NYS2d 375]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered April 10, 2013, which, inter alia, denied defendants-respondents’ motions to strike plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks money damages for the wrongful death of her decedent, and *“a*sum of money alone can provide full relief to [her] under the facts alleged” *(see Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp.,*136 AD2d 229, 232 [1st Dept 1988]; CPLR 4101 [1]). Contrary to defendants-respondents’ contention, “plaintiff’s ritualistic use in the prayer for relief of the language ‘and such other and further relief as to this court seems just and proper’, does not change the legal character of the relief demanded” *(id.*at 233).

Plaintiffs request for sanctions on appeal is denied. Concur— Gonzalez, EJ., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Clark, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Constantine L. Jackson, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 664]

Motion for reargument and for other relief denied. Present — Smith, J.E, Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Sconiers, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto Garcia, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 888]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated December 18, 1995 *(People v Garcia,*222 AD2d 605 [1995]), affirming three judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County, all rendered April 18, 1994.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the *964effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Rivera, J.E, Balkin, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### Tuttle *et al. v.*Garver.

*(Circuit Court, N. D. New York.*

January 11, 1888.)

Patents for Inventions—Prior Use—Harrows.

Upon the consideration of the evidence in this case, upon the question of alleged prior use, *held,*that the Willett harrow did not anticipate the Garver harrow, so as to invalidate the patent.'

'In Equity. Bill for injunction.

Action for infringement of letters patent by Richard D. Tuttle and others complainants, against Sylvester Garver, defendant.

*Charles H. Duett,*for complainants.

*Daniel L.*Benton, for defendant.

Coxe, J.

The only questions now argued are those relating to the alleged prior use by Elijah P. Willett at Collins, Erie county, New York.' The principal controversy having been so-frequently the subject of judicial decision is, quite properly, regarded by both parties as no longer open to discussion in the circuit court. *Reed*v. *Chase,*25 Fed. Rep. 94, and 29 Fed. Rep. 915. The evidence bearing upon the present issue was presented to the court upon a reargument of the principal cause, before Judges Jackson and Severens in the Western district of Michigan, (32 Fed. Rep. 228,) and was fully considered by them. It is unnecessarj'to enter upon an extended discussion of this testimony, as I concur in what was said regarding it in the opinion then delivered. The Willett harrow, if it existed, was not the Garver harrow.

It follows that there must be a decree for the complainants.
#### RUMMEL v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.

No. 68.

District Court, W. D. Washington, S. D.

Feb. 16, 1940.

Bartlett Rummel, of Tacoma, Wash., in pro. per.

Raymond G. Wright and Clark A. Eckart, lx>th of Seattle, Wash., for defendant.

YANKWICH, District Judge.

The defendant has moved to dismiss the amended complaint, to strike from it and for a more definite statement.

I am of the view that the first cause of action in the amended complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted. Rules 8(a) and 9(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The undue influence and overreaching of the decedent, an infirm and mentally weak old man, by the agent of the defendant, in selling an annuity contract, is averred with sufficient particularity.

That the agent may have been acting for the decedent as well as for the defendant in the transaction is not decisive of the question of liability.

The capacity in which the representations were made and for whose benefit, are issuable facts of agency upon which liability may rest. They cannot be determined except upon a trial of the issues. Hoerling v. Lowry, 1910, 58 Wash. 426, 108 P. 1090; Miller Estate, Inc., v. Drury, 1922, 120 Wash. 628, 208 P. 77; Hurd v. Bugnon, 1927, 145 Wash. 338, 260 P. 250.

As to the second cause of action, I am of the view that my previous ruling does not stand in plaintiff’s way. The original complaint stated one cause of action only. It is true that inadequacy of consideration was alleged as a part of it. That allegation fell with the cause of action when I held it inadequate.

Mere inadequacy of consideration may not be a ground of rescission. But when to inadequacy is added fraud and overreaching a justiciable claim arises. Rishel v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of California, 10 Cir., 1935, 78 F.2d 881, 884. The second cause of action states such a claim.

On -the whole, I am satisfied that the amended complaint states a claim with sufficient particularity and without surplusage.

The motions to dismiss, to strike and for a more definite statement of the claim will, therefore, be, and each of them is, hereby denied.

The defendant may have twenty days to answer.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15572]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Seeding Team Science in 
Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases.
    Date: July 31, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Robert Wellner, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 757, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-4721, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d3f3a7c7a783a0d232425632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="42303573757735022c2b2a6c252d34">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 24, 2009.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-15572 Filed 6-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit
      23.1**







CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
      Form
      SB-2 (No. 333-134651, 333-136942 and 333-137850) previously filed by MultiCell
      Technologies, Inc. of our report dated March 2, 2007, which contains an
      explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s ability to continue as a going
      concern, on our audit of the consolidated financial statements of MultiCell
      Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of November 30, 2006 and 2005 and for
      the
      years then ended, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
      for the year ended November 30, 2006.




/s/
      J. H.
      Cohn LLP









Roseland,
      NJ


March
      14,
      2007
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00128-CR

Aaron Cummings

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1362455D)

July 16, 2015

Opinion by Justice Walker

(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.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Sue Walker____________________

 Justice Sue Walker
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 Form 10-Q of Funtalk China Holdings Limited (the
“Company”) for the three months period ended June 30, 2009, as amended, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Dongping Fei, Chief Executive 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the period
certified.




/s/
      Dongping FeiDongping
      FeiChief
      Executive OfficerDecember 14,
      2009
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00597-CR

Lajuan L. Hall

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 3

of Tarrant County (1192679)

July 16, 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
### TEXAS COUR T OF APPEALS, THIRD DIST RICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-05-00846-CR
David Villa rreal, A

ppellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3031484, HONO RABLE JON N. WISSER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N

D U M O P

I N I O N Appellant’s brief was originally due July 3, 2006. The time for filing was extended three times on counsel’s motion. On S eptember 20, in granting the third extension, the Court ordered appella nt’s appo inted attorney, Mr. Walte r C. Prenti ce, to fi le a brie f on appe llant’s be half no later than October 2, 2006. Counsel did not file a brief as order ed. The appeal i s abated. The district court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the attorney it appointed to re present appellant has abandoned the appea l. T ex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2). The court

sh al l m ak e a pp ro pr ia te fi nd in gs , r ec om me nd at io ns , a nd or de rs . If ne ce ss ar y, the courtshall appoint substitute counsel who will effectively represent appellant on appeal. A record from this hearing, including copies of all finding s and orders and a transcription of the court2

reporter’s notes, shall be forwarded to the Clerk of

this Court for filing as a supplemental record no later than November 17, 2006. Rule 38.8(b)(3).

____________

______________

_________________

_ Bea Ann Smith, Justice Before Justices B. A. Smith, Pemberton and Waldrop Filed: October 18, 2006 Do Not Publi sh
ELECTRONIC RECORD

150 -/5

IS3-/5-

COA # 01-13-00640-CR OFFENSE: 22.02 (Aggravated Assault)

Dustin Wayne Glenn v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Galveston

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 405th District Court

DATE: 02/26/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 12CR2237

Dustin Wayne Glenn v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

APPZll^Mt\ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

Rgrw&b,

DATE: 06M(Lr

JUDGE: frJnUsist^—

IMINAL APPEALS \to-if

7

in-/?

CCA #:

CCA Disposition:

35#*V5

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

July 21, 2015 

v No. 321000 

Wayne Circuit Court 

AKEI LEVORN CHAPMAN, LC No. 13-009215-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and JANSEN and METER, JJ. 

HOEKSTRA, P.J., (concurring). 

 I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm defendant’s convictions. I write separately 

because, although I agree with the majority that any misconduct by the prosecutor was not 

outcome determinative and that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to 

object to the prosecutor’s remarks, I am persuaded that the prosecutor impermissibly expressed 

personal beliefs, unsupported by the evidence, when the prosecutor categorically asserted that 

“normal” and “healthy” friendships cannot exist between teenagers and adults. See People v 

Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 282-283, 286-287; 531 NW2d 659 (1995); People v Watson, 245 Mich 

App 572, 588; 629 NW2d 411 (2001). 

/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
----

----

Integrated Management Information, Inc. 10-Q

|   | (i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                 |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: May 13, 2011                                   |
| /s/ Dannette Henning­                           |   |
| Dannette Henning, Chief Financial Compliance Officer |
#### Security Co. *v.*Christy *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. Iowa, C. D.*

December 12, 1887.)

Bill for Foreclosure of Mortgage.

*Kauffman <& Guernsey,*for complainant.

*Phillips & Day,*for defendants.

Shiras, J.

The hill in this cause was filed for the purpose of foreclosing a mortgage executed by William Christy to William Bolles to secure the payment of the sum of $4,000, payable ^November 1, 1884. In 1881, after the 'execution of the mortgage, Christy sold the land to one Couch, who is made a defendant. At different times payments of amounts sufficient in the aggregate to discharge the mortgage debt were made by Christy & Couch to H. B. Creighton, of Des Moines; the same being made before the date of the maturity of the loan. ‘ The conclusions reached in the case of *Security Co.*v. *Richardson, ante,*16. are decisive of this cause. The Security Company does not claim to be the beneficial owner of the note and mortgage. It is merely a trustee for William Bolles. The evidence shows, as is held in the *Richardson Case,*that Bolles had constituted H. B. Creighton his agent in Iowa, with authority to collect the amounts due him and to receive payment thereon before, as well as after, maturity. The payments made to Creighton were therefore, in effect, made to Boíles, and hence, when this suit was brought, there was nothing due complainant or William Bolles. Decree must therefore be for dismissal of bill on the merits, at cost of complainant.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15535]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket <greek-i> EPA-RO4-SFUND-2009-0434, FRL-8925-1]


Davis Refining Superfund Site: Tallahassee, Leon County, FL; 
Notice of Settlements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of settlements.

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

SUMMARY: Under Section 122(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency has entered into five settlements for 
reimbursement of past response costs concerning the Davis Refining 
Superfund Site located in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida for 
publication.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlements 
until August 3, 2009. The Agency will consider all comments received 
and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlements if comments 
received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the 
settlements are inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlements are available from Ms. Paula V. 
Painter. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
SFUND-2009-0434 or Site name Davis Refining Superfund Site by one of 
the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting 
comments.
http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/sf/enforce.htm.
E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#411120282f3524336f1120342d20012431206f262e37"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="78281911160c1d0a5628190d1419381d0819561f170e">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404-562-8887.

    Dated: June 15, 2009.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund 
Division.
[FR Doc. E9-15535 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>