alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002I, Robert C. Hodgkins, Jr., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report of DCP Holding Company (the “Company’) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2007;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):          a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:   May 14, 2007   Signature: /s/ Robert C. Hodgkins, Jr.  Robert C. Hodgkins, Jr.  Principal Financial Officer
#### Haidy Onsy Asaad Yousef, Appellant, v Verizon Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[822 NYS2d 247]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered November 25, 2005, which, upon reargument, adhered to the prior order of the same court and Justice, entered August 11, 2005, which granted the motion of defendant Verizon Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the August 11, 2005 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the subsequent order.

Although the better practice would have been to plead Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 as an affirmative defense in its answer, Verizon was not required to do so inasmuch as the statute reflects the substantive law applicable to the facts of this case *(see Wilson v State of New York,*269 AD2d 854 [2000], *affd*95 NY2d 455 [2000]). That provision was properly applied by the motion court in determining whether liability might be assigned to Verizon based on its conduct of what was plainly highway work involving the use of a hazard vehicle. Inasmuch as the statute conditions the assignment of liability in such circumstances on reckless conduct, and the evidence discloses that there is no triable issue as to whether Verizon’s employees acted recklessly, summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against Verizon was proper. While there was some evidence that Verizon may not have complied with all applicable safety standards, there was no evidence of intentional conduct by its employees committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm *(see Saarinen v Kerr,*84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994]). Indeed, pedestrian and automobile traffic at the subject *316intersection was regulated by an admittedly unobscured traffic light, which, had it been uniformly observed, should have eliminated the risk of an accident such as the one alleged. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.
# table45_q5.4_size
S05Y1100.

#### IN THE MATTER OF JOHN L. WELSH II.

(612 SE2d 304)

Decided April 26, 2005.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, K. Gene Chapman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Lyle K. Porter,*for Welsh.

Per curiam.

This matter is before the Court on Respondent John L. Welsh II’s Petition for Voluntary Discipline. In the petition Welsh admits that he entered a plea of guilty to three misdemeanor counts of violating OCGA § 16-7-21 (criminal trespass) in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County. Welsh filed his petition under Bar Rule 4-227 (b) before the filing of a formal complaint.

The trespass arose from Welsh’s representation of a client in a divorce case and occurred when Welsh attempted to assist his client in gaining access to marital property to which the client was legally entitled under the parties’ settlement agreement. Welsh was sentenced to 36 months on probation, $1,000 fine, and general and special conditions of probation that include the filing of this petition and agreement to suspension of his license to practice law for a period of 12 months. Welsh avers that he will no longer engage in the practice of law beginning on or before April 26,2005 and asks that the 12-month suspension commence on the date of the order accepting his petition or on April 26, 2005, whichever date first occurs. The State Bar filed a response to the petition stating that the facts and conduct to which Welsh admits authorizes the imposition of discipline, and it recommends that the Court accept Welsh’s petition.

We conclude that it is in the best interests of the Bar and the public for this Court to accept Welsh’s petition for voluntary discipline. Accordingly, Respondent John L. Welsh II hereby is suspended from the practice of law in the State of Georgia for a period of 12 months from the date of this order. He is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Twelve-month suspension.*

*All the Justices concur.*
@article{1213791,
  author = {Yamil Simon},
  title = {Ion-neutral Collision Cross Section as a Function of the Static Dipole Polarizability and the Ionization Potential of the Ion},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-04-05 04:04:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Physical Chemistry A},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935384},
  language = {en},
}
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4-O

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                          FORD CREDIT CAPITAL TRUST III


                  The undersigned Trustees of Ford Credit Capital Trust III (the
"Trust"), pursuant to the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. C. sec.3801, et
seq.), HEREBY CERTIFY:

                  1. Name. The name of the business trust formed hereby is Ford
Credit Capital Trust III.

                  2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the
Delaware Trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware is Chase Manhattan Bank
USA, National Association, c/o JPMorgan Chase, Attention: Institutional Trust
Services, 500 Stanton Christiana Road, Floor3/OPS4, Newark, Delaware 19713.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being all of the Trustees
of the Trust, have executed this Certificate of Trust as of the 7th day of
December, 2001


                                                 DELAWARE TRUSTEE:
                                                 Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
                                                   National Association



                                                 By: /s/ John J. Cashin
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                     Name: John J. Cashin
                                                     Title:  Vice President




                                                 TRUSTEES:


                                                 /s/ Douglas J. Cropsey
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Douglas J. Cropsey


                                                 /s/ Stacy P. Thomas
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Stacy P. Thomas
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5	
<LEGEND>	
ART. 5 FDS for fiscal year 10-K	
</LEGEND>	
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       	
<S>                               	<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>	                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>	                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>	                              DEC-31-1996
<CASH>	                                         2,120 
<SECURITIES>	                                       0 
<RECEIVABLES>	                                134,907 
<ALLOWANCES>	                                   2,611 
<INVENTORY>	                                  158,685
<CURRENT-ASSETS>	                             297,048 
<PP&E>	                                       893,671
<DEPRECIATION>	                               296,043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>	                             1,203,949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>	                        105,498
<BONDS>	                                      319,407
<COMMON>	                                          34 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              	0 
<PREFERRED>                                        	0 
<OTHER-SE>	                                   623,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>	               1,203,949
<SALES>	                                    1,098,804
<TOTAL-REVENUES>	                           1,098,804
<CGS>	                                        941,693
<TOTAL-COSTS>	                                941,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>	                              88,987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   	0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>	                            13,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>	                               54,149
<INCOME-TAX>	                                  27,620
<INCOME-CONTINUING>	                           26,529
<DISCONTINUED>	                                     0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    	0 
<CHANGES>                                          	0 
<NET-INCOME>	                                  26,529
<EPS-PRIMARY>	                                   0.81 
<EPS-DILUTED>	                                   0.81 
        	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY *&*GUARANTY CO. (KOLLING, Third Party Defendant).

No. 129.

District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.

Feb. 1, 1940.

*113James J. Giblin, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff.

Ernest E. Watson, of Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

NORDBYE, District Judge.

The plaintiff, United States of America, is entitled to recover of the defendant, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, the sum of One Thousand ($1,-000) Dollars, with interest on said sum at the rate of six per cent per annum, from the 14th day of April, 1939, together with its costs and disbursements in this action.

The third-party plaintiff, the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, is entitled to recover of the third-party defendant, Dr. Arthur J. Kolling, the sum of One Thousand ($1,000) Dollars, with interest on said sum at the rate of six per cent per annum, from the 14th day of April, 1939, together with the costs and disbursements of the plaintiff, the United States of America, and plus the sum of Three Hundred Fifty ($350) Dollars, together with the costs and disbursements of the third-party plaintiff, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, in this action.

Let judgments be entered accordingly.
{N0271040; 1}

Carl D. Poplar (4791)

CARL D. POPLAR, P.A.

1010 Kings Highway South, Bldg. 2

Cherry Hill, NJ 08034

(856) 216-9979

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

----------------------------------------------------------------x

DAVID ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

-againstPERTTI TORMALA, et al.,

Defendants, and

BIORETEC OY,

Nominal Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No.: 2:11-cv-000525

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO L.Civ.R.

7.1(d)(4) THAT NO BRIEF IS NECESSARY

----------------------------------------------------------------x

Defendants, through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit its Motion for Pro Hac

Vice Admission of George O. Richardson, III without a Memorandum of Law in support thereof.

A Memorandum of Law is not required because defendants are relying upon the Certifications of

Carl D. Poplar and George O. Richardson, III, which establish that Mr. Richardson should be

admitted pro hac vice pursuant to L.Civ.R. 101.1(c).

June 27, 2011 CARL D. POPLAR, P.A.

By:/s/ Carl D. Poplar______

Carl D. Poplar (4791)

1010 Kings Highway South, Bldg Two

Cherry Hill, NJ 08034

(856) 216-9979

Email: cpoplar@poplarlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:11-cv-00525-CCC -JAD Document 40 Filed 06/28/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 247
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00269-CR

Victor Campos

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

148th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13CR2692-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 16, 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JASON JONES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-3063

 (D.C. Nos. 6:14-CV-01371-MLB and 

6:11-CR-10131-MLB-1)

(D. Kansas)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Before, HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Defendant Jason Jones seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) so that he can 

appeal the denial by the United States District Court for the District of Kansas of his 

motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (requiring COA 

to appeal denial of relief under § 2255). A COA “may issue . . . only if the applicant has 

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). 

 Defendant’s sole claim is that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments entitled him to jury 

findings beyond a reasonable doubt on the elements of his sentence enhancement under 

the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). As we informed him when he raised 

this identical issue on his direct appeal of his conviction, see United States v. Jones, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

July 20, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

530 F. App’x 747, 754 (10th Cir. 2013), this claim has no merit. See United States v. 

Prichard,875 F.2d 789, 791 (10th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (“Absent an intervening 

change in the law of a circuit, issues disposed of on direct appeal generally will not be 

considered on a collateral attack by a motion pursuant to § 2255.”). 

 We DENY a COA and DISMISS the appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1114 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1114

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate a 
   provision under the Medicare Advantage program that inadvertently 
 penalizes Medicare Advantage plans for providing high quality care to 
                        Medicare beneficiaries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 10, 2019

 Mr. Daines (for himself and Mr. King) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate a 
   provision under the Medicare Advantage program that inadvertently 
 penalizes Medicare Advantage plans for providing high quality care to 
                        Medicare beneficiaries.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Advantage Quality Payment 
Relief Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. RELIEF FROM QUALITY BONUS PENALTY IN CALCULATION OF THE 
              MEDICARE ADVANTAGE BLENDED BENCHMARK CAP.

    (a) In General.--Section 1853(n)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395w-23(n)(4)) is amended by striking ``determined taking into 
account'' and inserting ``determined without regard to''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
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 of Dekania Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Vernhes, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------- |  | -----------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Date: August 14, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ PAUL VERNHES
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  | Paul Vernhes           
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                  |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
      32


Section
      1350 Certifications




**STATEMENT
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




The
      undersigned is the Financial Officer of Imperiali Inc. This Certification is
      made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This
      Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Imperiali Inc
      for
      the quarter ended November 30, 2006.




The
      undersigned certifies that such 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
      information contained in such 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Imperiali Inc
      as
      of February 29, 2008.




This
      Certification is executed as of September 19, 2008.




/s/
                Daniel ImperatoDaniel
                Imperato-Interim CEO(Principal
                Executive Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      us, Inc. and will be retained by Imperiali Inc and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:11-cr-00051-SDW Document 23 Filed 11/29/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 50
Case 2:11-cr-00051-SDW Document 23 Filed 11/29/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 51
Table 2. Average annual wages for 2001 and 2002 for all covered workers1 by Consolidated

Metropolitan Statistical Area

Consolidated Metropolitan

Statistical Area2

Average annual wages3

2001 2002

Percent

change,

2001-02

 Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas4 ........................... $43,441 $43,687 0.6

Boston-Worcester-Lawrence-Lowell-Brockton, MA-NH ............. 45,766 45,685 -0.2

Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI ............................................... 41,813 42,370 1.3

Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN .................................................. 35,569 36,626 3.0

Cleveland-Akron, OH .................................................................. 34,948 35,640 2.0

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX ................................................................. 40,923 41,343 1.0

Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO ..................................................... 41,988 41,770 -0.5

Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI .......................................................... 41,698 42,332 1.5

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria,TX ................................................. 42,087 42,068 0.0

Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA ............................... 39,054 39,867 2.1

Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL ......................................................... 34,301 35,198 2.6

Milwaukee-Racine, WI ................................................................ 35,423 36,340 2.6

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA ..... 51,217 50,817 -0.8

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD ............... 39,719 40,640 2.3

Portland-Salem, OR-WA ............................................................ 36,127 36,529 1.1

Sacramento-Yolo, CA ................................................................. 37,736 38,966 3.3

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA ....................................... 54,139 52,441 -3.1

Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA ................................................ 42,229 43,053 2.0

Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV ..................................... 44,245 45,218 2.2

San Juan-Caguas-Arecibo, PR .................................................. 20,541 21,546 4.9

1 Includes workers covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI)

and Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE)

programs.

2 Includes data for Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas

(CMSA) as defined by OMB Bulletin No. 99-04. In the New

England areas, the New England County Metropolitan Area

(NECMA) definitions were used.

3 Each year’s total is based on the CMSA definition for the

specific year. Annual changes include differences resulting from

changes in CMSA definitions.

4 Totals do not include the San Juan-Caguas-Arecibo CMSA

within Puerto Rico.