alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Fernando L. Fernandez, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Continucare Corporation (the“Registrant”); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures” (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and15d-14) for the Registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation.  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date:  September 19, 2005 By:  /s/ Fernando L. Fernandez   Fernando L. Fernandez   Senior Vice President – Finance, Chief Financial Officer
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-38,809]

                    By letter of July 17, 2001, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, petition TA-W-38,809. The denial notice was signed on June 18, 2001 and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 5, 2001 (66 FR 35462).                

The Department has reviewed the request for reconsideration and has determined that further clarification of a survey response from a major customer of the subject firm would be appropriate.

## Conclusion

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, DC this 11th day of December 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade, Adjustment Assistant.

[FR Doc. 01-31624 Filed 12-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000825851
<NAME> WELLESLEY LEASE INCOME  PARTNERSHIP IV FDS 3/31/97
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         177,319
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  237,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                    39,073
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               375,847
<PP&E>                                       4,619,375
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,546,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,448,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          201,803
<BONDS>                                        530,305
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    12,149,459
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,432,982)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,448,585
<SALES>                                        254,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               439,411
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,766
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               241,238
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (23,790)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,055
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                196,142
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            196,142
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   196,142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     7.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1808** 

TANGE LA ANITA HARRIS, a/k/a Tange r Anita Harris , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv
- 01303

- HMH )

Submitted : October 13, 2011 Decided: October 17, 2011

Bef ore SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Tange la Anita Harris , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Tange la Anita Harris appeals the d istrict court’s

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
summarily dismissing her civil action as barred by the statute

of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) . We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its
order dismissing Harris’ action without prejudice

. Harris v.
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. , No. 8:11

- cv
- 01303

- HMH (D.S.C. June
27, 2011)

. * We dispense with oral argument because the f acts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

* Although a dismissal without prejudice is ordinarily not a final, appealable order, Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993), the applicable three

- year statute of limitations period has passed. S.C. Code Ann. § 15

- 3

- 530(5), (8) (2005 ). Thus, the dist rict court’s order is effectively a final order.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Leroy ROEBUCK, Appellant.

No. 09-4163.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) Dec. 16, 2010.

Filed: Dec. 20, 2010.

*628Kim R. Lindquist, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, St. Thomas, VI, Evan Rikhye, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Christiansted, VI, for United States of America.

Amelia B. Joseph, Esq., Christiansted, VI, for Appellant.

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, FUENTES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Leroy Roebuck pled guilty to possessing marijuana with intent to distribute on July 15, 2009. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the United States agreed to dismiss part of the indictment, to file a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion for downward departure at sentencing, and to specifically recommend a sentence of probation. At the sentencing hearing, however, the prosecutor did not recommend probation, and instead voiced a recommendation of zero to six months’ imprisonment. The District Court imposed a sentence of six months’ imprisonment, whereupon defense counsel reminded the prosecutor of his commitment to recommend probation. The parties and the court conferred at a sidebar, where the government acknowledged that it had inadvertently reneged on part of its share of the plea bargain. The court did not alter its sentence, but instead instructed the parties to file appropriate motions. Both the government and the defendant complied, filing separate motions for a stay of the sentence. The court denied both motions on October 13, 2009. The government filed a motion for resentencing two days later, but the court entered judgment imposing the six-month sentence that same day. The defendant timely appealed his sentence, asking that the case be remanded to the District Court for resentencing. To its credit, the government acknowledges its error and supports the defendant’s request that the plea bargain be enforced.

Whether the government has violated the terms of a plea agreement is a question of law to be reviewed de novo; if a violation is found the case must be remanded either for resentencing or for withdrawal of the guilty plea. *United States v. Moscahlaidis,*868 F.2d 1357, 1360 (3d Cir.1989) (citing *Santobello v. New York,*404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971); *United States v. Miller,*565 F.2d 1273 (3d Cir.1977); *United States v. Crusco,*536 F.2d 21 (3d Cir. 1976)). We agree with the parties that the government violated the terms of the plea agreement by failing to recommend a sentence of probation. The prosecution made a commitment and admits failing to live up to it. The attempted correction at the sidebar conference came too late to affect the District Court’s decision and was not an adequate substitute for specific performance. Accordingly, vacatur of the sentence is warranted.

As to remedy, the defendant does not ask to withdraw his plea, preferring instead to be resentenced in accordance with the terms of his agreement. We agree that this is the appropriate resolution of the case, and will therefore remand with instructions that the defendant be resentenced by a different judge.
EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


<PAGE>

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


     1.   Right Associates Government Services, Inc., a Virginia corporation

     2.   Right Associates Acquisition Co., a Delaware corporation

     3.   Conviction Right France, SA, a French corporation

     4.   Right Associates (Belgium), Inc., a Delaware corporation

     5.   Right Associates (France), Inc., a Delaware corporation

     6.   Right Associates & Co., SNC, a Belgium corporation

     7.   Right Human Resources, Inc., a Canadian corporation

     8.   Right Associates, Ltd., a U.K. corporation

     9.   Right Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation

     10.  Right Associates License, Inc., a Delaware corporation

     11.  R.M.C. & Co., SNC, a Belgium corporation

     12.  The THinc Consulting Group International (U.K.), Ltd., a U.K.
          corporation

     13.  People Tech Consulting Corporation, a Delaware corporation

     14.  People Tech Consulting, Ltd., a Canadian corporation

     15.  Pro Transition, Inc., a Canadian corporation

     16.  Chapel Stowell, Inc., an Oregon corporation

     17.  Cavendish Partners Ltd., a U.K. corporation

     18.  Right D & A Pty. Ltd. (51% ownership), an Australian corporation
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor obo Hargis v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC              

#   Secretary of Labor obo Hargis v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC

SOL%20obo%20Hargis%20v%20Vulcan%20Constr%20SE%202021-0163%20et%20al%20Meeting%20notice%2011-14-23.pdf

SOL20Hargis20Vulcan20SE20et20Meeting2011-14-23.htm

commission-open-meetingsecretary-labor-behalf-hargis-v-vulcan-construction-materials-llc-docket-nos.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Edwin Remberto GOMEZ-SEGURA, also known as Edwin Remberto Segura-Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40150

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edwin Remberto Gomez-Segura, Way-mart, PA, pro se.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edwin Remberto Gomez-Seg*915ura (Gomez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Gomez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Exhibit
21.1  SILICON GRAPHICS,
INC. SUBSIDIARIES   Name
  
  Jurisdiction of
  IncorporationAlias|Wavefront, Inc.
  
  CaliforniaParaGraph International, Inc.
  
  CaliforniaWTI Developments, Inc.
  
  CaliforniaCray Research, LLC
  
  DelawareCray Asia/Pacific, Inc.
  
  DelawareCray Financial Corporation
  
  DelawareCray Research (America Latina) Ltd.
  
  DelawareCray Research (Eastern Europe) Ltd.
  
  DelawareCray Research (India) Ltd.
  
  DelawareCray Research International, Inc.
  
  DelawareSilicon Graphics Federal, Inc.
  
  DelawareSilicon Graphics Real Estate, Inc.
  
  DelawareSilicon Graphics World Trade Corporation
  
  DelawareSilicon Studio, Inc.
  
  DelawareSilicon Graphics S.A.
  
  ArgentinaSilicon Graphics Pty Limited
  
  AustraliaSilicon Graphics International Inc.
  
  BarbadosSilicon Graphics S.A./N.V.
  
  BelgiumAlias|Wavefront N.V.
  
  BelgiumSilicon Graphics Comercio e Serviços Limitada
  
  BrazilCray Research (Canada) Inc.
  
  CanadaSilicon Graphics Limited
  
  CanadaWavefront Canada Limited
  
  CanadaSilicon Graphics spolecnost rucerum omezenym
  
  Czech RepublicSilicon Graphics A/S
  
  DenmarkSilicon Graphics
  
  FranceAlias|Wavefront SAS
  
  FranceSilicon Graphics GmbH
  
  GermanyAlias|Wavefront GmbH
  
  GermanySilicon Graphics A. E.
  
  GreeceSilicon Graphics Limited
  
  Hong KongSilicon Graphics Systems (India) Ltd
  
  IndiaCray Research (Israel) Ltd.
  
  IsraelSilicon Graphics Computer Systems Limited
  
  IsraelAlias|Wavefront  Srl.
  
  ItalySilicon Graphics S.p.A.
  
  ItalyAlias|Wavefront KK
  
  JapanKorea Silicon Graphics Ltd.
  
  South KoreaSilicon Graphics Sdn. Bhd.
  
  MalaysiaSilicon Graphics S.A. de C.V.
  
  MexicoSilicon Graphics B.V.
  
  NetherlandsSilicon Graphics Europe Trade B.V.
  
  NetherlandsSilicon Graphics World Trade B.V.
  
  Netherlands  
    Name
  
  Jurisdiction of
  IncorporationSilicon Graphics Limited
  
  New ZealandSilicon Graphics A/S
  
  NorwaySilicon Graphics Computer Engineering and Technology (China) Co. Ltd.
  
  Peoples Republic of
  ChinaSilicon Graphics Pte. Limited
  
  SingaporeSilicon Graphics, S.A.
  
  SpainSilicon Graphics AB
  
  SwedenSilicon Graphics S.A.
  
  SwitzerlandSilicon Graphics Manufacturing S.A.
  
  SwitzerlandSilicon Graphics Trading SARL
  
  SwitzerlandSilicon Graphics Limited
  
  TaiwanSilicon Graphics Bilbisayar Sistemleri Anonim Siket
  
  TurkeyAlias|Wavefront Limited
  
  United KingdomSilicon Graphics Limited
  
  United KingdomSilicon Graphics Manufacturing Finance Limited
  
  Jersey Channel IslandsSilicon Graphics S.A.
  
  Venezuela   -2-
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3743 

AN ACT 

To increase funding for the Reagan-Udall Foundation for 

the Food and Drug Administration and for the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3743 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Supporting the Foun3 dation for the National Institutes of Health and the 

4 Reagan-Udall Foundation for the Food and Drug Admin5 istration Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAGAN-UDALL FOUNDATION AND FOUNDATION 

7 FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH. 

8 (a) REAGAN-UDALL FOUNDATION FOR THE FOOD

9 AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.—Section 770(n) of the 

10 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

11 379dd(n)) is amended by striking ‘‘$500,000 and not 

12 more than $1,250,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,250,000 and 

13 not more than $5,000,000’’. 

14 (b) FOUNDATION FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES

15 OF HEALTH.—Section 499(l) of the Public Health Service 

16 Act (42 U.S.C. 290b(l)) is amended by striking ‘‘$500,000 

17 and not more than $1,250,000’’ and inserting 

18 ‘‘$1,250,000 and not more than $5,000,000’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 

2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3743 

AN ACT 

To increase funding for the Reagan-Udall FoundaHealth. for the Foundation for the National Institutes of tion for the Food and Drug Administration and
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      12,716,576
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,443,646
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,049,760
<PP&E>                                      18,698,469
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,356,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             153,578,163
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,820,095
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           974
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               153,578,163
<SALES>                                     16,308,494
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,308,494
<CGS>                                       15,400,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (223,717)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (17,817,987)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (17,817,987)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.38)


</TABLE>