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



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed the Quarterly Report of CastlePoint Holdings, Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the 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 the Report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in the Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented
in the Report;4.
    
    The Company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 Company 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 Company, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which the Report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in the Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by the
Report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in the Report any change in the Companys internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys first quarter of 2008
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Companys internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and to
the audit committee of the 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 Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over
financial reporting.
 /s/ Joel S. WeinerJoel S. WeinerChief Financial OfficerMay 9, 2008 38
#### STATE EX REL. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA AND OTHERS v. JOHN A. WEEKS AND OTHERS.1

February 10, 1950.

No. 35,182.

*Butchick, Smith & Enkel,*for relators.

*Francis X. Helgesen,*for respondent Minnesota State Industrial Union Council.

*Morgan, Chase, Headley & Hoshour,*for respondent Western Electric Company, Inc.

1

 Reported in 41 N. W. (2d) 177.

Per Curiam.

This matter came before the court on February 7, 1950, for hearing on an alternative writ of prohibition relative to the enforcement of an order of the district court of Hennepin county in the above-entitled matter, dated January 12, 1950. Examination of the record discloses that that order by its terms remains “in effect only until 10:00 A. M. February 6, 1950, * * * at which time said order shall be of no further effect and shall become null and void.”

Consequently, the question presented by the alternative writ has become moot. The writ is discharged with costs to respondents.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-1775

Filed September 14, 2016

NICHOLAS HANEGAN,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Eliza J. Ovrom, 

Judge.

Nicholas Hanegan appeals an adverse summary judgment ruling on his 

application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

Joey T. Hoover of Hoover Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Winterset, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2

MULLINS, Judge.

Nicholas Hanegan appeals an adverse summary judgment ruling on his 

application for postconviction relief, claiming he was entitled to an evidentiary 

hearing. On our review, we conclude the judgment of the district court was 

correct and no error of law appears. We affirm without opinion. See Iowa R. 

App. P. 6.1203(a), (d). Furthermore, even if Hanegan’s claim of newly 

discovered evidence had merit, the claim is barred by not having been raised 

within three years of its discovery. See Iowa Code § 822.3.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6752

DERRICK JAVON LINDSEY, a/k/a Derrick Javon Lindsey El Bey,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00020-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Javon Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Lindsey seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as late his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Lindsey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 23 2015

NO. 03-14-00044-CR

John Fredrick Zedler, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

MODIFIED AND, AS MODIFIED, AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no error in the court’s

judgment requiring reversal. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. However, 

there was error in the judgment and sentence that requires correction. Therefore, the Court 

modifies the trial court’s judgment to reflect that the jury found appellant used a deadly weapon. 

The judgment, as modified, is affirmed. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, 

no adjudication of costs is made.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. PR09-10-002]

Take notice that on June 12, 2009, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company filed an Operating Statement pursuant to section 284.123(e) of the Commission's regulations and to comply with the Commission's letter order issued on May 21, 2009, in Docket Nos. PR09-10-000 and PR09-10-001.

Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 30, 2009.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-15379 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
ex10-25



 



EXHIBIT 10.25


CIENA CORPORATION



AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE

1999 NON-OFFICER STOCK OPTION PLAN



     I, Russell B. Stevenson, Jr., Secretary of CIENA Corporation, certify that on October 16, 2001, the Human
Resources Committee of the Board of Directors, acting in its capacity as the Committee to administer the
1999 Non-Officer Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) duly adopted the following resolutions amending the Plan:



		
	 	     RESOLVED, that the authorized number of shares of Common Stock available for grant under the Company’s 1999
Non-Officer Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) be and hereby is increased from 24,000,000 shares to 39,000,000 shares.
	 
	 	     RESOLVED FURTHER, that on the last day of each fiscal year of the Company, beginning with fiscal 2002, the authorized number of shares
of Common stock available for grant under the Plan shall be increased by 4.2% of the number of shares of Common Stock then
issued and outstanding.
	 
	 	     RESOLVED FURTHER, that 15,000,000 additional shares of Common Stock shall be immediately reserved for issuance under the Plan;
and on the last day of each fiscal year beginning with fiscal 2002 an additional number of shares shall be reserved for issuance
under the Plan equal to the increase in the number of shares authorized to be issued under the Plan on that date.




	 	 
	 	

	 	Russell B. Stevenson, Jr.

Secretary
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




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






In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Royal Equine Alliance Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Demitro
Marianovich, Principle Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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, as amended; and




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






Registrant
              
              Date:
      August 12, 2009
            
            Royal
      Equine Alliance Corporation
              
              By:
      /s/ Demitro MarianovichDemitro
      MarianovichChief
      Executive Officer (Principle Executive Officer, Principle Financial
      Officer)







21
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 106 

To reauthorize and extend funding for community health centers and the 

National Health Service Corps. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2019 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. CARPER, Mr. 

GARDNER, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Ms. BALDWIN, Mrs. CAPITO, 

Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. WICKER, Mr. TESTER, 

Ms. COLLINS, Mr. KING, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. PETERS, and Mr. 

JONES) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reauthorize and extend funding for community health 

centers and the National Health Service Corps. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Health In5 vestment, Modernization, and Excellence Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 106 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH 

2 CENTERS AND NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE 

3 CORPS. 

4 Section 221 of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reau5 thorization Act of 2015 is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the 

7 following: 

8 ‘‘(3) ADDITIONAL FUNDING.—In addition to 

9 amounts appropriated under section 10503(b) of the 

10 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there 

11 are appropriated to the CHC Fund the following: 

12 ‘‘(A) For purposes of paragraph (1) of 

13 such section— 

14 ‘‘(i) for fiscal year 2020, 

15 $4,200,000,000; 

16 ‘‘(ii) for fiscal year 2021, 

17 $4,400,000,000; 

18 ‘‘(iii) for fiscal year 2022, 

19 $4,600,000,000; 

20 ‘‘(iv) for fiscal year 2023, 

21 $4,800,000,000; and 

22 ‘‘(v) for fiscal year 2024, 

23 $5,000,000,000. 

24 ‘‘(B) For purposes of paragraph (2) of 

25 such section— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 106 IS

1 ‘‘(i) $325,000,000 for fiscal year 

2 2020; 

3 ‘‘(ii) $340,000,000 for fiscal year 

4 2021; 

5 ‘‘(iii) $355,000,000 for fiscal year 

6 2022; 

7 ‘‘(iv) $370,000,000 for fiscal year 

8 2023; and 

9 ‘‘(v) $385,000,000 for fiscal year 

10 2024.’’; and 

11 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘and fiscal 

12 year 2107’’ and inserting ‘‘, fiscal year 2020, fiscal 

13 year 2021, fiscal year 2022, fiscal year 2023, and 

14 fiscal year 2024’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

no. RECEI

COURT OFCBMimi APPEALS

LUKE WAYNE HILTON ^ JUL 1$2015

Appdknt' onj^mmoB

V. 228rH District Court of

Harris County, Texas;

Trial Cause Number 1408458

THE STATE OF TEXAS

PETITIONER'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIMETO^^f^

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TM«. wheals

JUL 2 1 2015

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: Abel Acosta, Cierk

LUKE HILTON, Petitioner in the above cause number, would respectfully

request the Court to grant his motion to extend the time to file his petition for

discretionary review. In support of said motion, Appellant would show unto, the

Court the following:

I.

This appeal lies from Appellant's convictions in The State ofTexas v. Luke Wayne

Hilton, No. 14-14-00777-CR; Cause Number 1408458 in the 228th District Criminal

Court of Harris County, Texas. Mr. Hilton was charged with the third degree felony

offense of burglary of a habitation enhanced with two prior felony convictions. Mr.

Hilton entered a plea of not guilty on September 16, 2014, and proceeded to trial by
4

jury. On September 18, 2014, the jury found Mr. Hilton guilty as charged and

sentenced Mr. Hilton to twenty-seven (27) years imprisonment in the Institutional

Division of Texas Department of CriminalJustice

Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review is due July 23, 2015. This is

Appellant's first request for an extension to file the petition for discretionary review.

II.

Appellant is requesting an extension of time in order to fully evaluate the issues

to be raised in the PDR. An extension of time is necessary so that the petition for

discretionary review can be timely filed. This motion is not made for the purpose of

delay.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this

Honorable Court will grant this requested extension of time to file the Appellant's

Petition for Discretionary Review in the above cause for ninety days and extend the

time for filing the petition untilJtdy-24, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,

MrTLuke

TDCJ No. 01956S

Barry B. Telford Unit

3899 HWY 98

New Boston, Texas 75570

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument was this day served

on counsel for the State by mailing same to the following parties on this the iL day of TfiAsly ,201.6:

Mr. Allen Curry

Harris County District Attorney's Office

Appellate Division

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

State Prosecuting Attorney

P.O. Box 12405

Austin, Texas 78711

Luke Hilton, PRO S
June 28, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

VIRIDINIA Z. PAZ, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00664-CV V.

CARMEN ROSA MOLINA, Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, CARMEN ROSA 

MOLINA, signed July 8, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find error in the judgment.

Therefore, we REVERSE the portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding 

$5,517.26 in damages for past medical care and RENDER judgment reinstating the jury’s 

award of zero damages for past medical care. We vacate the portion of the trial court’s 

judgment awarding pre-judgment interest, and REMAND to the trial court for a 

recalculation of pre-judgment interest, in light of the reduction in the total damage award.

We AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment in all other respects. 

We order appellee, CARMEN ROSA MOLINA, to pay all costs incurred in this 

appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 23, 2015 519909 

________________________________

In the Matter of COUNTY OF

BROOME,

Respondent,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NIRAV R. SHAH, as Commissioner

of Health, et al.,

Appellants.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 2, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Garry and Lynch, JJ.

__________

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Victor

Paladino of counsel), for appellants.

Whiteman Osterman & Hanna, LLP, Albany (Christopher E. 

Buckey of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Tait, J.),

entered June 16, 2014 in Broome County, which partially granted

petitioner's application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to

CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, to, among

things, annul a determination of respondent Commissioner of

Health disallowing petitioner's claims for certain Medicaid

reimbursements.

This Court recently held that a 2012 amendment to the

Medicaid Cap Statute (see L 2012, ch 56, § 1, part D, § 61) was

not unconstitutional and interpreted the amendment as having

imposed a statute of limitations which, upon the expiration of a
-2- 519909 

six-month grace period beginning on November 26, 2014, barred the

submission of claims for reimbursement of overburden expenses

incurred by counties before 2006 (see Matter of County of Chemung

v Shah, 124 AD3d 963, 963 [2015], lv granted 25 NY3d 903 [2015]; 

Matter of County of St. Lawrence v Shah, 124 AD3d 88, 92-93

[2014], lv granted 25 NY3d 903 [2015]). During such grace

period, petitioner submitted claims to respondent Department of

Health (hereinafter DOH) for reimbursement of pre-2006 overburden

expenses, which DOH denied. 

Petitioner commenced this combined CPLR article 78

proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking, among other

things, an order annulling DOH's determination, compelling

respondents to pay the claims and finding the 2012 amendment

unconstitutional on due process grounds. As is relevant here,

Supreme Court granted petitioner's application to annul DOH's

determination and directed DOH to pay the disputed claims, unless

it could prove that any or all of such claims were inaccurate or

illegitimate, as well as any remaining overburden expense

reimbursements due to petitioner under Social Services Law

§ 368-a (1). Respondents appeal. 

For the reasons set forth in Matter of County of St.

Lawrence v Shah (supra), we reject respondents' contention that

Supreme Court erroneously awarded petitioner mandamus relief. We

also conclude that, by failing to raise it as an affirmative

defense in their answer, respondents waived their claim that

petitioner lacked the capacity to assert a due process violation

(see Matter of County of Chemung v Shah, 124 AD3d at 964; Matter

of County of St. Lawrence v Shah, 124 AD3d at 91).

Lahtinen, Garry and Lynch, JJ., concur.
-3- 519909 

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court