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

I, William W. Hodge, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hampshire Group,
     Limited;

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 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 and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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 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;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
     committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
     equivalent function):

     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   November 6, 2003
------------------------

/s/ William W. Hodge
--------------------
William W. Hodge
Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deamond Larocca MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40447

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 7, 2008.

*688James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Alonzo Ramos, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Deamond Larocca Mitchell appeals his conviction for transporting an alien unlawfully in the United States. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction insofar as it failed to establish that he knowingly transported, or attempted to transport, an undocumented alien.

Mitchell did not renew his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence. Therefore, our review of the sufficiency issue is “limited to determining whether ... the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.” *United States v. Herrera,*313 F.3d 882, 885 (5th Cir.2002) (en banc). The following evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s determination that Mitchell knew his trailer contained illegal aliens: (1) he parked his tractor-trailer in a dimly lit area where 18-wheel-er parking was prohibited; (2) he did not secure his trailer doors when he allegedly went to the bathroom in the theater and then went in search of body lotion; (3) his allegation that he went in search of lotion was not credible given that the shopping mall did not contain a Dollar General Store; (4) he was observed pacing back and forth behind the trailer and talking on a two-way radio that he purportedly found in his hotel room; (5) he had to physically enter the trailer around the very time the aliens were being loaded inside to perform the temperature checks; and (6) the three testifying aliens were independently led to his truck within a relatively short period of time, suggesting that Mitchell was knowingly involved in the offense. Consequently, the record contains indirect evidence pointing to his guilty knowledge.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Editors

Plan, coordinate, revise, or edit written material. May review proposals and 

drafts for possible publication.

Cognitive and mental requirements

The qualifications that workers need to use judgment, make decisions, interact 

with others, and adapt to changes in jobs.

In 2023, work was controlled by people for 28.0 percent of editors, and work 

was self-paced for 63.1 percent.

Table 1. Percentage of editors with cognitive and mental requirements, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Pace: Pause control 97.5 2.5

Working around crowds 3.2 96.8

Telework 49.3 50.7

Work review: Supervising others 36.2 63.8

Work review: Presence of supervisor 61.1 38.9

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey

Education, 

training, and 

experience 

requirements

The minimum level 

of formal education 

required, 

credentials 

necessary, on-thejob training, and 

prior work 

experience 

necessary for 

average 

performance in 

jobs.

In 2023, credentials 

were required for 

10.3 percent of 

editors. Prior work 

experience was required for 84.1 percent and on-the-job training was required for 46.2 percent.

A bachelor's degree was required for 83.2 percent of editors.
Occupational Requirements Survey ●www.bls.gov/ors ●orsinfo@bls.gov ●202.691.6199

Environmental conditions

The various tangible or concrete hazards 

or difficulties that are in the vicinity of 

where jobs’ critical tasks are performed.

In 2023, greater than 99.5 percent of 

editors were not exposed to extreme cold, 

and greater than 99.5 percent were not 

exposed to extreme heat. Wetness was 

not present for greater than 99.5 percent, 

greater than 99.5 percent were not 

exposed to heavy vibrations, and 95.1 

percent were not exposed to the 

outdoors.

Physical demands

Refer to the physical activities required 

to perform tasks in jobs. The presence 

and, in some cases, duration of these 

activities are published.

In 2023, keyboarding was required for 

greater than 99.5 percent of editors and 

was not required for less than 0.5 

percent. For less than 0.5 percent of 

workers, keyboarding was seldom 

performed, for 11.7 percent 

keyboarding occurred occasionally, 76.7 

percent frequently, and for 11.6 percent 

keyboarding occurred constantly.

Performing work in low postures was 

required for 2.6 percent of editors and 

was not required for 97.4 percent.

The choice to sit or stand when performing critical tasks was available to 98.2 percent of editors. On average, workers 

spent 91.5 percent of the workday sitting and 8.5 percent of the workday standing.

Table 2. Percentage of editors with physical demands, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Choice of sitting or standing 98.2 1.8

Driving 10.3 89.7

Climbing structure-related ramps or stairs 5.9 94.1

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey
IIA 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 24 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency 

relating to ‘‘Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2015 

Mrs. CAPITO (for herself, Ms. HEITKAMP, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. 

BLUNT, Mr. LEE, Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. HOEVEN, 

Mr. WICKER, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. SULLIVAN, 

Mr. ROUNDS, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. THUNE, Mrs. FISCHER, 

Mr. RUBIO, Mr. COATS, Mr. COTTON, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. RISCH, Mr. 

VITTER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. MORAN, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. 

CORNYN, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. ENZI, Mr. 

PERDUE, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. PAUL, Mrs. ERNST, Mr. 

HATCH, Mr. DAINES, Mr. SASSE, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. 

TOOMEY, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GRAHAM, and Mr. CORKER) introduced the 

following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the 

Environmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Carbon 

Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 24 IS 

1 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the En2 vironmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Carbon Pollu3 tion Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 

4 Electric Utility Generating Units’’ (published at 80 Fed. 

5 Reg. 64662 (October 23, 2015)), and such rule shall have 

6 no force or effect. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Jose Bustos MORALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70978.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Jose Bustos Morales, San Pablo, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Colette J. Winston, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Bustos Morales petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion, *see Konstantinova v. INS,*195 F.3d 528, 529 (9th Cir.1999), and we deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.

The BIA considered the new evidence Bustos Morales submitted regarding his daughter Elena and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).

The BIA abused its discretion in failing to address Bustos Morales’ motion to reconsider and we remand for further consideration. *See Singh v. Gonzales,*416 F.3d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir.2005) (remanding *957in light of BIA’s unexplained failure to address petitioner’s claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR
NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             499
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129,837
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,600
<INVENTORY>                                    115,336
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               247,354
<PP&E>                                          36,490
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 291,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,024
<BONDS>                                         41,178
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           171
<OTHER-SE>                                     153,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   291,682
<SALES>                                        668,247
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               668,247
<CGS>                                          588,211
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  588,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,885
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,076
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,511
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,565
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,565
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.88
        


</TABLE>
#### Alejandro Mancilla BAEZ; Maria Del Rosario Barajas Calzada, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74457.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 **.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

James E. Root, Esq., Law Offices of James E. Root, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Securi*50ty, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Lisa M. Arnold, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Alejandro Mancilla Baez and his wife Maria Del Rosario Barajas Calzada, seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification of CEO Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a  14 and 15d  14
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Thomas R. Trotter, the Chief Executive Officer of OrthoLogic Corp., certify
that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of OrthoLogic Corp.; 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; 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 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 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: November 9, 2004
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 26, 2020

No. 04-20-00131-CV

Clint Harrison ELLER,

Appellant

v.

DAD P AS NEXT FRIEND TO T.P. a Minor,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-383A

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

A copy of appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this court on February 28, 2020. 

When the notice of appeal was filed, this court notified appellant in writing that our records did 

not reflect that the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 was paid. In addition, our record contains 

no evidence that appellant is excused by statute or rule from paying the filing fee. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 5, 20. 

We therefore ORDER appellant to show cause in writing by April 10, 2020 that either: 

(1) the filing fee has been paid; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the filing fee. 

If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for failure to 

pay the filing fee. See id. R. 5, 42.3(c) All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending the 

payment of the filing fee. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of March, 2020.
___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50251

Summary Calendar

 

GREGORY BERNARD SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DENISE DESHIELDS, Medical Doctor - Rogelio Sanchez State Jail;

CHAPLIN WALLS, Physicians Assistant - Rogelio Sanchez State Jail;

GILBERT CAMPUZANO, Warden - Rogelio Sanchez State Jail; 

ROCHELLE MCKINNEY, A.D. Medical, Regional Director Medical;

ALL NURSES OF MEDICAL STAFF OF THE ROGELIO SANCHEZ STATE JAIL,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-99-CV-187-H

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

May 2, 2002

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gregory Bernard Smith, Texas prisoner #798960, appeals the

district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for judgment as

a matter of law pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a). Smith argues

that the district court erred by granting the motion during jury

deliberations. Smith also argues that the district court erred
No. 01-50251

-2-

in determining that he failed to establish the defendants’

deliberate indifference toward his hepatitis condition. Smith’s

motion for appointment of appellate counsel is DENIED. See Ulmer

v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). 

We review the grant of a judgment as a matter of law de

novo. Hidden Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin, 138 F.3d 1036, 1042

(5th Cir. 1998). Judgment under Rule 50 is proper when “a party

has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally

sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for

that party on that issue.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.

Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 149 (2000)(quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a)). 

The record demonstrates that before the case went to the jury,

the district court excused the jury in order to entertain the

parties’ arguments on the motion. A further review of the record

and the allegations made by Smith fail to establish the requisite

elements of deliberate indifference. See Domino v. Texas Dep’t

of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001)(citation

and quotation omitted). Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.