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

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Brad E. Schwartz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Monarch Financial Holdings, 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer
and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies 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 14, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Brad E. Schwartz                              
|                      |  |  |  | Brad E. Schwartz                                  
|                      |  |  |  | Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN RALEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

BOB WILLIAMS; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16561 

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02652-JAMDMC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Stephen Raley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of a 

citation and fine imposed on him for growing marijuana. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure 

* 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

NOV 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-16561 

to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Sheppard v. David Evans and 

Assoc., 694 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Raley’s due process, equal protection, 

and excessive fines claims because Raley failed to allege facts sufficient to state a 

plausible claim. See Austin v. Univ. of Or., 925 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2019) 

(requirements for procedural due process claim); Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650, 

660 (9th Cir. 2012) (class-of-one doctrine of equal protection does not apply to 

state action that involves discretionary decisionmaking based on subjective, 

individualized assessments); see also United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 

334 (1998) (a fine is unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment if 

its amount is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Raley’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (court may decline 

supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims once it has dismissed all 

claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
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 fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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: June 24, 2009 | By:                         
|                     |                             
|                     |                             
|                     |                             

31

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1607]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLCAN00000.L18200000.ZX0000]

Notice of Public Meeting: Northwest California Resource Advisory 
Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 
the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
Northwest California Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated 
below.

DATES: The meeting will be held Thursday and Friday, March 26 and 27, 
2009, at the Bureau of Land Management Redding Field Office, 355 
Hemsted Dr., Redding, California. On March 26, the council convenes at 
10 a.m. and departs for a field tour of recreational trails managed by 
the Redding Field Office. On March 27, the meeting begins at 8 a.m. in 
the Conference Room at the Redding Field Office. Time for public 
comment has been reserved for 1 p.m. on Friday, March 27.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Burns, BLM Ukiah Field Office 
manager, (707) 468-4000; or BLM Public Affairs Officer Joseph J. 
Fontana, (530) 252-5332.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 12-member council advises the Secretary 
of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and 
management issues associated with public land management in Northwest 
California. At this meeting agenda topics include a planning session 
for the coming year's work, a discussion of areas in which the RAC can 
assist the BLM, and an update on management of the Sacramento River 
Bend Area of Critical Environmental Concern. All meetings are open to 
the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the 
council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for 
public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, 
and the time available, the time for individual comments may be 
limited. Members of the public are welcome on field tours, but they 
must provide their own transportation and lunch. Individuals who plan 
to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language 
interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the 
BLM as provided above.

    Dated: January 12, 2009.
Joseph J. Fontana,
Public Affairs Officer.
 [FR Doc. E9-1607 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
```
Case 2:11-cv-02438-SRC-MAS Document 7 Filed 05/06/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 53
Case 2:11-cv-02438-SRC-MAS Document 7 Filed 05/06/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 54
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, February 24, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Smiley at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2369.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Assistance Center Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, February 24, 2009, at 1 p.m.                           ( print page 990)                        Central Time. For more information, please contact Ellen Smiley. Ms. Smiley can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-231-2369. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, write to Ellen Smiley at 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or you can contact us at                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

Dated: December 22, 2008.

Roy L. Block,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E9-166 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit
13.2





Certification of CFO
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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of ClickSoftware Technologies
Ltd. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Shmuel
Arvatz, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:





(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/Shmuel
Arvatz


Name:
Shmuel Arvatz


Title:
Chief Financial Officer


Date:  May
4, 2009








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.





This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
#### W.G. & Associates, LLC, Appellant, v A. Aleem Construction, Inc., Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 754]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered July 11, 2005, which denied petitioner project owner’s application to stay an arbitration demanded by respondent contractor, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered November 29, 2005, which denied petitioner’s motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

The condition precedent to arbitration requiring a decision by the project architect on all claims “arising prior to the date final payment is due” is inapplicable, since the claim here was made after final payment became due, i.e., after the architect had approved petitioner’s final request for payment. Petitioner’s other claims were improperly advanced for the first time either on reargument *(see William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis,*182 AD2d 22, 27 [1992], *lv dismissed in part and denied in part*80 NY2d 1005 [1992]) or on appeal *(cf. Chateau D'If Corp. v City of New York,*219 AD2d 205, 209 [1996], *lv denied*88 NY2d 811 [1996]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.
#### Andre Smith, Respondent, v Steven E. Seskin et al., Respondents, and Donald Martino et al., Appellants.

[854 NYS2d 420]

The plaintiff Andre Smith allegedly sustained injuries when the car in which he was a passenger was involved in a five-car collision on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge with cars operated and/or owned by the defendants. Based on the parties’ deposition testimony, it is undisputed that the car operated and owned by the defendant Andrzej S. Rytel was stopped when it was hit in the rear by a car owned and operated by the defendant Donald Martino, and pushed forward into the car operated by the defendant Steve E. Seskin and owned by the defendant Rosalinda Seskin. Martino’s car was stopped when it was hit in the rear and propelled into Rytel’s car by the car operated and owned by the defendant John J. James, in which Smith was a passenger. James’s car was hit in the rear by the car operated by the defendant Joseph B. Palascak and owned by the defendant Ahsan U. Zafar. Prior to this chain-reaction collision, Rytel and Martino each were able to bring their car to a complete stop without coming into contact with the cars in front of them.

The Seskins moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them, and Rytel and Martino cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. The Supreme Court granted the Seskins’ motion but denied the cross motions without explanation.

*629A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle creates a prima facie case of negligence with respect to the operator of the rearmost vehicle (see *Ahmad v Grimaldi,*40 AD3d 786 [2007]; *Sabhagh v Shalom,*289 AD2d 469 [2001]). Rytel and Martino established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that the cars they were operating were stopped prior to being hit in the rear by the cars behind them *(see Bournazos v Malfitano,*275 AD2d 437, 438 [2000]; *Elezovic v Harrison,*292 AD2d 416, 417 [2002]). The papers submitted in opposition to the cross motions failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether negligence on the part of Rytel and/or Martino contributed to the collision *(see Campbell v City of Yonkers,*37 AD3d 750, 751 [2007]; *Belitsis v Airborne Express Frgt. Corp.,*306 AD2d 507, 508 [2003]; *Bournazos v Malfitano,*275 AD2d 437 [2000]). Accordingly, the cross motions of Rytel and Martino for summary judgment should have been granted. Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   I, John P. Greeley, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of JPG Associates, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;    5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.   Date: May 16, 2007    /s/ John P. Greeley John P. Greeley Title: President and Chief Financial Officer  2
_______________________________________ __ ___________________ ________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
February 21, 2008

135566

MARK EARL WHITE, #228524

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee. Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

SC: 135566 CoA: 281030

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff-appellant having failed to pay the partial filing fee as required by the order of January 3, 2008 , the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close this file.

jm I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
February 21, 2008
Clerk
#### In the Matter of Stuart Meltzer, Petitioner, v Robert Ross, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

[853 NYS2d 901]

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see People v Rodriguez,*95 NY2d 497, 501-502 [2000]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.