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

**MedPro Safety Products, Inc.****Rule 13a-14(a) Certification****of Chief Financial Officer**

I, Marc T. Ray, Chief Financial Officer of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company;

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

      (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.

| Dated: August 13, 2008 | /s/  Marc T. Ray        |
|------------------------|-------------------------|
|                   |                         |
|                   | Marc T. Ray             |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer |

28

----
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40380

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

LISA RENEE HENSDELL

,

Defendant-Appellant

. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 579

Filed: June 23, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

T HIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Jerome County. Hon. John K. B utler , District Judge.

Order awarding restitution

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney

General, Boise, fo r respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;
and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Lisa Renee Hensdell appeals from the district court’s restitution order, entered pursuant

to Idaho Code § 19

- 5304. On appeal, Hensdell contends the district court abused its discretion

by issuing the restitution order without finding that the year

- long de lay in entering the order,

from the time of the judgment of conviction, was necessary for the processing of the request for

restitution. See State v. Jensen , 149 Idaho 758, 763, 241 P.3d 1, 6 ( Ct. App. 2010). Her claim of

error will not be reviewed becau se s he did not preserve it by objecting below. The fundamental

error doctrine may not be invoked to raise a restitution issue for the first time on appeal because

restitution proceedings are civil in nature. State v. Mosqueda , 150 Idaho 830, 834, 252 P.3 d 563,

567 (Ct. App. 2010). Accordingly, the order awarding restitution is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 3.1

                               SECRETARY OF STATE
                                  [State Seal]
                                 STATE OF NEVADA

                            CERTIFICATE OF EXISTENCE
                          WITH STATUS IN GOOD STANDING

I, DEAN HELLER,  the duly elected and qualified  Nevada  Secretary of State,  do
hereby  certify  that I am,  by the laws of said  State,  the  custodian  of the
records   relating  to  filings  by   corporations,   non-profit   corporations,
corporation   soles,    limited-liability   companies,   limited   partnerships,
limited-liability  partnerships  and business  trusts pursuant to Title 7 of the
Nevada Revised  Statutes which are either presently in a status of good standing
or were in good standing for a time period  subsequent of 1976 and am the proper
officer to execute this certificate.

I further certify that the records of the Nevada Secretary of State, at the date
of this  certificate,  evidence,  PHC HOLDINGS,  as a corporation duly organized
under the laws of  Nevada  and  existing  under and by virtue of the laws of the
State of Nevada since, July 13, 1994, and is in good standing in this state.

[STATE SEAL]

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I have  hereunto set my hand And affixed the Great Seal of
State, at my office, in Carson City, Nevada, on December 8, 2004

/s/Dean Heller
--------------
Secretary of State

/s/Ral
----------------
Ral
Certification Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

TROY L. CARDOSO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10436 

D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00023-MCE

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Troy L. Cardoso appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to 

modify a condition of his supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see 

United States v. Bainbridge, 746 F.3d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-10436 

Cardoso argues that the special condition of his supervised release that 

prohibits him from possessing or using, without his probation officer’s approval, 

any device that has access to any online computer service, is overbroad as applied 

to him. This argument fails because the condition “allows for approval of 

appropriate online access by the Probation Office,” and therefore does not operate 

as an overly broad ban on Internet access. See United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 

608, 621 (9th Cir. 2003). Contrary to Cardoso’s claim, the fact that his probation 

officer denied his first and only request for access does not change this conclusion. 

The district court’s denial of Cardoso’s motion to modify this condition was 

warranted under the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and 

circumstances of the underlying offense, the need to protect the public and provide 

deterrence, and Cardoso’s repeated violations of the conditions of his supervised 

release, including the condition at issue in the instant appeal. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e); United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128, 1142 (9th Cir. 2005). 

AFFIRMED.
Name of Offender: Hakem Siiyani Docket Number: 11-00112-001

PACTS Number: 56728

Name of Sentencing Judicial Officer: HONORABLE STANLEY R. CHESLER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date of Original Sentence: 06/01/2011

Original Offense: SALE OR RECEIPT OF STOLEN GOODS, SECURITIES, MONEYS, etc.Original Sentence: 2 years probation

Type of Supervision: Probation Date Supervision Commenced: 06/01/11Assistant U.S. Attorney: Leslie Schwartz, 970 Broad Street, Room 502, Newark, New Jersey 07102(973)645-2700

Defense Attorney: Gary Mizzone (Assigned), 245 Peterson Avenue, Little Ferry, New Jersey 07424 (973)785-8887

PETITIONiNG THE COURT

To issue a warrant

To issue a summons

The probation officer believes that the offender has violated the following condition(s) ofsupervision:Violation Number Nature ofNoncomoliance

I The offender has violated the standard supervision condition which states ‘You

shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime,’On September 2,2011, the offender was arrested in Jersey City, New Jersey ona charge of distribution of a controlled dangerous substance..

2 The offender has violated the standard supervision condition which states ‘You

shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity, and shall

not associatewith any person convicted ofa felony unless granted permission

to do so by the probation officer.’

During an office visit on March 27,2012, the offender admitted associating withPeter Ventricelli, a known felon.
and shallsubmitto urinalysis or otherforms oftesting to ensure compliance.

It Is further ordered that you shall submit to evaluation and treatmen onan outpatient or Inpatient basis, as approved by the U.S. Probation Office.

You shall abide by the rules of any program and shall remain In treatment

until satisfactorily discharged by the Court. You shall alert all medical

professionals of any prior substance abuse history, Including any prior

history of prescription drug abuse. The Probation Officer shall supervise

your compliance with this condition,’On June 27, 2012, the offender tested positive for marijuana during a randomurine screen conducted by the undersigned officer via a five-panel instant test.

The offender admitted to having smoked the substance on June 26, 2012.

4 The offender has violated the standard supervision condition which states ‘You

shall answer truthfully all Inquiries by the probation officer and follow theinstructions of the probation officer.’When questioned regarding the positive marijuana results, the offender reported

that he smoked marijuana in furtherance of his cooperation with the HudsonCounty Prosecutor’s Office, when meeting with the target ofthe investigation.The undersigned officer subsequently confirmed that the offender was never

directed to meet with the target ofthe investigation on June 26, 2012.

I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foreoing is true and correct.

,) 7 Bassolino içr) 201107.24

13:50:03 040C?

By: Giseila M. Bassolino

U.S. Probation OfflcerC

Date: 7/24/12,

THE COURT ORDERS:

[4The Issuance of a Warrant1 J The Issuance of a Summons Date of Hearmg [ ] NoAction

[]Other

Date
### aampaaratddior tih6 full tkdP OUZ%'tnt OOIltl?&i8? (I " . . l .

Tkiil a?6-a r 2~o ln6 ntl

**. .**  **. .**  **~~~t8Ofth188~~Ulsn PlOJW**  **Of UI**  ilUtitUt h l **rYWd hOl**  **” dll**  **for 8UWbO8**  **durirg a**  **I- rerrion**  **8h8ll** 

## not **exawd** 

### the **8al8z ’** **y ratepaidfbc~by**  **’ OefOI**  **’ ~#a#OP8~b3** **’** **80ni0*8** 

### dLUQ.Ug **tbo 10~**  **fO8~iolr Or**  **that imtitU**  

### tiars.

**”** 

### &w&w rtatedbefow,the 

### oolloga ir lS.8ble under tb4OOIltF~ttOthOt~WhOPiOFhi8 8d#IF~fbl'th8Idtlth=OZith. l3utw know 

### or M reuon uhy the aollycr oould 

### not re~ulre arty 

### ol? all of rush teaahem to to&ah the iirrt month of the rm%t **8OIUJ8t@?WhbhVO~~J1~tJbUtb** 

### ninthmonthundw-the **oontraatr** 

### Al80, w are of the an that the aollege and tho m-f mnth mdor the aontraat adug the reaond nor&h 

## or the **third** 

### month of the next remeatatr. **If 8U&**  

## ti@'tb8ROllt8 aould **be** 

### worked Out, it 

### would tend to equaJ.izu the numbor 

## or teaahorr 

## 0vor the *ntlxw seswtew.

ticma
**V-f W**  **I-- A!eTmxEx-**  **OF Txtd**
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

July 20, 2015

Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202)479-3011

;avF OTRTQPCBiMtlWUppEALS Re: Stephen Herbert Speckman jnj n-**--

v. Texas

No. 14-8503

(Your No. WR-81,947-01) 4to'Aoo8te.Cferjr

Dear Clerk:

The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk
EXHIBIT 32





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 All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, President and Principal Accounting 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 operations of the Company.








/S/ Barry SchwartzBarry SchwartzCEO andPrincipal Financial OfficerMarch 1, 2010
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 Tianyin Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Quoqing
Jiang, 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 results of operations of the Company at the dates
and for the periods indicated.








Date: 
May 15, 2009




/s/  Guoqing Jiang


Guoqing
Jiang


Acting
Chief Accounting Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Green Standard Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending June 30,  2015, I, Sean Webster, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

1.

Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2015, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2015, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  August 19, 2015

Green Standard Technologies, Inc.



By:    /s/ Sean Webster



Sean Webster







A0086250.DOC
**Exhibit 32.2**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the “Company”) for the annual period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Marc T. Ray, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), 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 the Company. |
|                    |

|                  | MEDPRO SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC. |
|-----------------------|------------------------------|
|                  |
|                  |
| Dated: April 16, 2009 | By:                          | /s/Marc T. Ray |
|                  |                         |  |
|                  |                         | Marc T. Ray |
|                  |                         |  Chief Financial Officer |

26

----
EME-EX10(t-3)_2012.12.31-Q4




EXHIBIT 10(T-3)


SECOND AMENDMENT TO 2010 INCENTIVE PLAN 
 
 
    This Second Amendment to the 2010 Incentive Plan is made as of December 5, 2012.


NOW, THEREFORE, the 2010 Incentive Plan is hereby amended as follows:


1.Section 4(a) is hereby amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof:


“The Committee may also delegate to a director of the Company, who may be the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, the right to approve and grant Awards under the Plan, subject to such conditions and limitations as the Committee may prescribe, except that the Committee may not delegate the power to designate, and make grants of Awards, including decisions on timing, amount and pricing of Awards, to a Participant (i) who is subject to Section 16 of the Act or any successor statute or (ii) whose compensation is covered by Section 162(m) of the Code.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


EMCOR Group, Inc.




By     /s/ Anthony J. Guzzi______      
     Anthony J. Guzzi, President 
     and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending
June 30, 2006 as filed with the Federal Reserve Bank on the date hereof (the Report), I, Brad E. Schwartz, Executive Vice President and 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 operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 8, 2006 |  | /s/ Brad E. Schwartz.                               
|                     |  | Brad E. Schwartz                                    
|                     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



26
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and 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 based on their
knowledge and belief:

(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 operations of the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ William F. Rountree, Jr.                        
|William F. Rountree, Jr.,                           
|President & Chief Executive Officer                 
|                                                    
|/s/ Brad E. Schwartz.                               
|Brad E. Schwartz                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                    
|Date: May 11, 2009                                  



32
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D 20 2 3

- 1601 Lower Tribunal No. 20 08

- CF

- 15374

- A

- O

_____________________________ T ERRELLE A. T ULLIS , Appellant ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal Pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Orange County

. Renee A. Roche , Judge.
July 23, 2024

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

.
NARDELLA , SMITH and BROWNLEE , JJ., c oncur.

Terrelle A. Tullis, Craw fordville, pro se.
No appearance for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javon R. JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-2119.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 23, 2013.

Decided Jan. 30, 2013.

Gayle L. Helart, Zachary Augustus Myers, Office of the United States Attorney, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Mario Garcia, Brattain & Minnix, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant-Appellant.

Javon R. Jones, Coleman, FL, pro se.

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Within a three-month period, Javon Jones robbed four Indianapolis banks and attempted to rob a fifth. He pleaded guilty to five counts of armed bank robbery, *see*18U.S.C. § 2113(a), and signed a plea agreement that “expressly waives his right to appeal the conviction ... [and] the sentence imposed in this case on any ground” if the sentence is within or below the calculated guideline range. The district court calculated a guidelines range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment and imposed a sentence of 235 months. Despite having waived his right to appeal as part of a plea agreement, Jones appeals. His appointed lawyer now seeks to withdraw because he believes an appeal would be frivolous. *See Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Jones has not responded directly to his lawyer’s motion, *see*Cir. R. 51(b), but his lawyer reports that Jones wishes to challenge the voluntariness of his appeal waiver and the reasonableness of his sentence. We thus confine our review to these issues as they are presented in the lawyer’s facially adequate brief. *See United States v. Schuh,*289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir.2002).

We will enforce an appellate waiver if its terms are unambiguous, as they are here, and if the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement containing the waiver. *United States v. Chapa,*602 F.3d 865, 868 (7th Cir.2010). The transcript of Jones’s plea colloquy shows that the court substantially complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, *531which renders the plea valid. *See*Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(h); *United States v. Konczak,*683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir.2012). Specifically, the district court explained the significance of the appeal waiver, Jones’s trial rights, and the consequences of the plea. Jones told the court that he understood the court’s warnings and that he was voluntarily giving up his right to appeal his sentence. Since an appeal waiver stands or falls with the guilty plea, and this plea is valid, the appeal waiver must be enforced. *United States v. Sakellarion,*649 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir.2011). Moreover, the issue Jones proposes — the reasonableness of the sentence — falls squarely within the appeal waiver’s scope. The plea agreement “expressly waives his right to appeal the sentence imposed in this case on any ground, including the right to appeal conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742.”

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.