alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Marc T. Ray, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MedPro Safety Products,  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(s) 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; and

      (c) 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 

      (d) 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 (the registrant’s fourth  fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,  or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control  over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

      (a) All significant deficiencies and material  weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting  which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to  record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

      (b) Any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the  registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

| Date: August 13, 2008 | /s/ Marc T. Ray                                 |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                  |                                                 |
|                  | Marc T. Ray                                     |
|                  | Vice President Finance, Chief Financial Officer |

29

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

T.S., a child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-1761

[February 21, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; James L. Martz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17CJ000494AMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. 

Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 Justice

###### United States Parole Commission

          - [9P04091]

# Agency Holding Meeting:

Department of Justice, United States Parole Commission.

# Time and Date:

10 a.m., Thursday, July 16, 2009.

# Place:

5550 Friendship Blvd., Fourth Floor, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

# Status:

Open.

# Matters to be Considered:

The following matters have been placed on the agenda for the open Parole Commission meeting:

                        1. Approval of Minutes of May 14, 2009 Quarterly Business Meeting.                              ( print page 34036)    

2. Reports from the Chairman, Commissioners, Chief of Staff, and Section Administrators.

# Agency Contact:

Thomas W. Hutchison, Chief of Staff, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5990.

Dated: July 7, 2009.

Rockne J. Chickinell,

General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.

 [FR Doc. E9-16472 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

YUNAIMA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 11-1686 (KSH) 

REGIONS BANK, ET. AL.,

ORDER

Defendants.

KATHARINE S. HAYDEN, U.S.D.J.

This matter having come before the Court by way of Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz’s 

Report and Recommendation [D.E. 26] that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack 

of personal jurisdiction; and the parties having had 14 days to object to the Report and 

Recommendation pursuant to L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(2); and none of the parties having filed an 

objection; good cause appearing,

It is on this 13th day of September, 2011,

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [D.E. 26] is accepted, and it is further

ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s 

Complaint is dismissed.

/s/ Katharine S. Hayden

Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-01686-KSH-PS Document 29 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 192
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16118]



[[Page 32617]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, July 20, 2009, 8 a.m. to July 
21, 2009, 6 p.m., Ritz Carlton Hotel, 1150 22nd Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20037 which was published in the Federal Register on 
June 26, 2009, 74 FR 30597-30598.
    The meeting will be held at the Palomar Hotel, 2121 P Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20037. The meeting dates and time remain the same. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: June 30, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-16118 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

RICHARD MULLARKEY, Civil Action No.: 1O-cv-6637 (CCC)

Plaintiff, I

I ORDER

ROBERT KORNITZER, ANDREW

MILLER, and BUDD LARNER CORP.,

Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation [ECF Docket

No. 41] of the Honorable Joseph A. Dickson regarding Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [ECF Docket No. 30]. For the reasons set forth

in the accompanying Opinion,

IT IS on this 25th day ofJuly, 2012,

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and Defendants’ motion

to dismiss is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk ofthe Court shall close the file in this matter.

SO ORDERED.

HON. CLAIRE C. CECCHI

United States District Judge

Case 2:10-cv-06637-CCC-JAD Document 49 Filed 07/25/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 287
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4990 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

8135 Forest Lane in Dallas, Texas, as the ‘‘Dr. Robert E. Price Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2004 

Mr. SESSIONS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 8135 Forest Lane in Dallas, Texas, as the 

‘‘Dr. Robert E. Price Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DR. ROBERT E. PRICE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 8135 Forest Lane in Dallas, 

6 Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Dr. Robert 

7 E. Price Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2 

•HR 4990 IH 

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Dr. Robert E. Price 

3 Post Office Building. 

Æ
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONBY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending March 31,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Ronald T. Barnes, Senior Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer and Secretary 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:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

Date:  May 15,2009

 
|        | /s/ Ronald  T. Barnes                  |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Ronald T. Barnes                       |
|   | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial |
|   | Officer and Secretary                  |

 

----
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, 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(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15(d)-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 (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls 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: August 14, 2008
    /s/  JAN SMILEKJan SmilekVice President, Finance
Acting Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
##### 



Exhibit
4.50
 (INTERNET MEDIA LICENSING LTD. LOGO)
    
    (ULTRA INTERNET MEDIA, S.A. LOGO)
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
        1. SCHEDULE B
 Payment
    
    DueUp-front, non-refundable license fee, of USD $0
    
    Upon signing of agreementSoftware Royalties for Games of Chance Software
- the royalty shall be equal to Forty-two
percent (42%)of Gross Revenues (Royalty
Rate) derived from the Games of Chance
Software, received in the particular
Calculation Period, effective March 1, 2007.
    
    On the tenth day of each
calendar month following
the end of the preceding
Calculation Period.Software Royalties for Multi Player Game
Software- the royalty shall be equal to
Seventeen and one half percent (17.5%) of Gross
Revenues (Royalty Rate) derived from the
Multi-Player Game Software, received in the
particular Calculation Period, effective
January 1, 2007.
 Internet Media Licensing Limited. Standard EULA
    
    Page 1 of 23rd Amendment
    
    Contract No. EULA-010404




---



##### 



(INTERNET MEDIA LICENSING LTD. LOGO)
    
    (ULTRA INTERNET MEDIA, S.A. LOGO)
     
  Internet Media Licensing Limited
    
    
    
    Ultra Internet Media S.A. :By:
    
    /s/ Kenneth Huang
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ William LeeName: Kenneth Huang
    
    
    
    Name:
    William LeeTitle: Director
    
    
    
    Title: Director
 Internet Media Licensing Limited. Standard EULA
    
    Page 2 of 23rd Amendment
    
    Contract No. EULA-010404
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Richard Heyse,
certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 results of operations of Innophos Holdings, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided Innophos Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Innophos
Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The undersigned expressly disclaims any
obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: November 4, 2008



/S/ RICHARD HEYSERichard HeyseVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DAVID SATCHELL

v.

JOHN WETZEL, SECRETARY OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 

BERNADETTE MASON, FACILITY 

MANAGER OF SCI MAHANOY; LARRY 

KRASNER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF 

PHILADELPHIA,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 28 EM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2020, the “Emergency Motion Seeking Release 

from Respondent[’]s Custody” is DENIED.
#### Christopher Kolonkowski, Appellant, v Daily News, L.P., Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 271]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (K. Murphy, J.), entered August 7, 2012, which denied his cross motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) precluding the defendant from compelling him to submit to an independent medical examination, and directed him to submit to an independent medical examination.

*678Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s cross motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) precluding the defendant from compelling him to submit to an independent medical examination is granted.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when the defendant’s unsecured newspaper vending machine fell and struck him. In a prior decision and order dated April 3, 2012, this Court reversed an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 31, 2011, granted the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant upon its failure to appear or answer the complaint, and denied the defendant’s cross motion to compel the plaintiff to accept its late answer (see *Kolonkowski v Daily News, L.P.,*94 AD3d 704 [2012]). Subsequently, in an order entered August 7, 2012, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs cross motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103 (a) precluding the defendant from compelling him to submit to an independent medical examination, and directed him to submit to the examination.

Although “ £a defaulting defendant is entitled to present testimony and evidence and cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses at the inquest on damages,’ a defendant forfeits the right to discovery by defaulting in answering the complaint” *(Minicozzi v Gerbino,*301 AD2d 580, 581 [2003], quoting *Santiago v Siega,*255 AD2d 307, 307 [1998]; *see Amato v Fast Repair, Inc.,*15 AD3d 429, 430 [2005]; *Hall v Penas,*5 AD3d 549, 550 [2004]). Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant was not entitled to any further discovery, since its right to discovery was forfeited by its default in answering the complaint *(see Montgomery v City of New York,*307 AD2d 957 [2003]; *Minicozzi v Gerbino,*301 AD2d 580, 581 [2003]; *Santiago v Siega,*255 AD2d at 307-308). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs cross motion for a protective order and directing him to submit to an independent medical examination. Dillon, J.E, Angiolillo, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Case 2:11-cv-00873-JLL -CCC Document 14-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 334
Case 2:11-cv-00873-JLL -CCC Document 14-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 335
Case 2:11-cv-00873-JLL -CCC Document 14-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 336
Case 2:11-cv-00873-JLL -CCC Document 14-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 337
Case 2:11-cv-00873-JLL -CCC Document 14-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 338
Case 2:11-cv-00873-JLL -CCC Document 14-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 339
Case 2:11-cv-00873-JLL -CCC Document 14-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 340
Case 2:11-cv-00873-JLL -CCC Document 14-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 341
Case 2:11-cv-00873-JLL -CCC Document 14-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 342
Case 2:11-cv-00873-JLL -CCC Document 14-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 343
Case 2:11-cv-00873-JLL -CCC Document 14-1 Filed 08/02/11 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 344
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

VICINAGE OF NEWARK

 

JEFFREY M. MULLER; et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE HON. PHILIP J. MAENZA; et al., 

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION No. 

10-cv-6110(WHW)(CCC)

Honorable William H.

Walls, U.S.D.J.

SECOND REVISED

SCHEDULING ORDER

 

On the consent of the parties, the Court amends the Revised

Scheduling Order entered on February 17, 2011 (District Document

#28) as follows:

State Defendants will submit a reply in support of their

cross-motion no later than March 16, 2011.

It is SO ORDERED on this _________ day of March, 2011.

 

William H. Walls

United States District Judge

10th

/s/ William H. Walls

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -CCC Document 34 Filed 03/10/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 362
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1158

In re: TERRY JACKSON BENNETT , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 3:93

- cr - 00254

- RJC

- 1; 3:16

- cv - 00520

- RJC )

Submitted : March 8, 2018 Decided: March 14, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Terry Jackson Bennett, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terry Jackson Bennett petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the distric t court’s docket reveals that the district court has dismissed Bennett’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decide d Bennett’ s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts a nd legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED