alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2  IDEAEDGE, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Jonathan Shultz, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of IdeaEdge, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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) [Paragraph omitted]; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Date: August 14, 2008/s/ Jonathan ShultzJonathan ShultzChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### In the Matter of Robert OO., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant. Sullivan County Attorney, Respondent.

[824 NYS2d 693]

Cardona, EJ.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Sullivan County (Ledina, J), entered October 3, 2005, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 3, to adjudicate respondent a juvenile delinquent.

Respondent was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent based upon his admission to committing an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of resisting arrest. Following a dispositional hearing on September 30, 2005, Family Court *1075ordered respondent placed in the care and custody of the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of one year. This appeal by respondent ensued.*

Respondent correctly contends that the allocution was defective because Family Court did not inform him and his mother of the “possible specific dispositional orders” prior to accepting respondent’s admission (Family Ct Act § 321.3 [1] [c]). Family Court made some statements about its general power to decide, among other things, what would happen to respondent, but did not discuss, as required, specific dispositional alternatives, nor the nature or duration of any placement (see Family Ct Act § 321.3 [1] [c]; *Matter of Timothy M.,*225 AD2d 915, 916 [1996]; *Matter of Herbert RR.,*214 AD2d 891, 892 [1995]). Moreover, no exchange between the court and respondent’s mother appears in the record (see *Matter of Joshua HH.,*299 AD2d 760 [2002]; *Matter of Tiffany MM.,*298 AD2d 728, 729-730 [2002]). Inasmuch as the provisions of Family Ct Act § 321.3 (1) are mandatory and cannot be waived (see *Matter of Joshua HH., supra*at 760; *Matter of Florence V.,*222 AD2d 991, 992 [1995]; *Matter of Brian OO.,*158 AD2d 816 [1990]), the order must be reversed. Furthermore, because respondent’s placement period has expired, dismissal of the petition, rather than remittal, is warranted (see *Matter of Tiffany MM., supra*at 730). In view of the foregoing, we need not address respondent’s remaining contentions.

Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed.

*

 To the extent that petitioner contends that the appeal is untimely, the record establishes that the appeal was taken within 35 days after the order of fact finding and disposition was mailed to respondent by the Clerk of the court and was, therefore, timely (see Family Ct Act § 1113).
# C_2006224EN.01003401.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/34

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2006 — Chafiq Ayadi v Council

(Case T-253/02) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Competence of the Community - Freezing of funds - Fundamental rights - Jus cogens - Review by the Court - Action for annulment)

(2006/C 224/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chafiq Ayadi (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: initially by A. Lyon, H. Miller and M. Willis-Stewart, Solicitors, and S. Cox, Barrister, and subsequently by A. Lyon, H. Miller and S. Cox)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bishop, Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by J. Collins, and subsequently by R. Caudwell, Agents, and by S. Moore, Barrister) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Brown and M. Wilderspin, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

The partial annulment of Council Regulation No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to his own costs, those of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to his own costs, those of the Council;

| 3. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.

1

---
### §1122. Classification of claims or interests

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a plan may place a claim or an interest in a particular class only if such claim or interest is substantially similar to the other claims or interests of such class.

(b) A plan may designate a separate class of claims consisting only of every unsecured claim that is less than or reduced to an amount that the court approves as reasonable and necessary for administrative convenience.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2631.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### senate report no. 95–989

This section codifies current case law surrounding the classification of claims and equity securities. It requires classification based on the nature of the claims or interests classified, and permits inclusion of claims or interests in a particular class only if the claim or interest being included is substantially similar to the other claims or interests of the class.

Subsection (b), also a codification of existing practice, contains an exception. The plan may designate a separate class of claims consisting only of every unsecured claim that is less than or reduced to an amount that the court approves as reasonable and necessary for administrative convenience.
### §751. Customer name securities

The trustee shall deliver any customer name security to or on behalf of the customer entitled to such security, unless such customer has a negative net equity. With the approval of the trustee, a customer may reclaim a customer name security after payment to the trustee, within such period as the trustee allows, of any claim of the debtor against such customer to the extent that such customer will not have a negative net equity after such payment.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2614.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### senate report no. 95–989

Section 751 requires the trustee to deliver a customer name security to the customer entitled to such security unless the customer has a negative net equity. The customer's net equity will be negative when the amount owed by the customer to the stockbroker exceeds the liquidation value of the non-customer name securities in the customer's account. If the customer is a net debtor of the stockbroker, then the trustee may permit the customer to repay debts to the stockbroker so that the customer will no longer be in debt to the stockbroker. If the customer refuses to pay such amount, then the court may order the customer to endorse the security in order that the trustee may liquidate such property.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-50 

December 2, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4001(b) Definitions. Employer and Controlled Group 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of October 31, 1975 requesting an opinion from this Office. You ask whether

certain events constitute a plan termination under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (the

"Act"). 

Our opinions are based on the information provided in your letter and in a telephone conversation with * * * of may

staff on November 7, 1975. 

First, you indicate that a single plan, which shall be referred to as "plan A," is maintained by a parent and its whollyowned subsidiary. You state that the plan is "terminated as to participants of the subsidiary." The subsidiary has never

accounted for more than 10% of the number of plan participants and has never acco unted for more than 10% of all

employer contributions paid to the plan. Further, benefits are payable under the plan with respect to participants of the

subsidiary without regard to its cessation of contributions. 

Second, you indicate that a plan, which shall be referred to as "plan B," is maintained by a parent and its whollyowned subsidiary and that the subsidiary "terminates its participation in the pension plan." The parent in [*2] "plan B"

is wholly-owned by the parent in "plan A." The terminating subsidiary accounts for approximately 40% of the number

of plan participants and 40% of the employer contributions paid to the plan, but less than 10% of the total participants

covered by "plans A and B" and less than 10% of the contributions to "plans A and B." Further, benefits are payable

under "plans A and B' to the participants of the subsidiary without regard to its cessation of contributions. 

In our view, the events described probably do not constitute Title IV "terminations." See § 4001(b) of the Act. A

definitve answer to your questions cannot be given until this Corporation issues regulations under § 4001(b) of the Act,

however. 

We trust this answer your inquiry. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

A PRIL 12

, 201 2

Beth Deabay, Chief RCRA Waste Management & UST Section U.S. EPA Region 1, (OSRR07

- 1), 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109

- 3912

Subject: International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) F006 Delisting

Dear Ms. Deabay :

Th is is to confirm that Vermont concurs with the EPA Region 1 determination that when the EPA excludes

a waste from RCRA Subtitle C control through the federal RCRA delisting program , that “ delisting ” will take effect in Vermont without the need for Vermont to change its regulations.

This determination is supported by Section 7

- 217(c) of the Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (VHWMR) which states that “(t) he Administrator of EPA shall re tain the authority to exclude (federally listed hazardous) wastes .” Also, the f ederal r egister notice published a t the time of Vermont’s

1993 authorization ( 58 Fed. Reg. 26243 1993) state s “ Vermont does not seek authorization to delist federally listed was tes. Section 7

- 216(3) [ this has since moved to VHWMR 7

- 217(c)] provides that any delisting of a hazardous waste which is listed as hazardous under 40 CFR part 261 shall be done by EPA. Vermont's authority to delist is restricted to those wastes regulated o nly in Vermont. ”

P lease feel free to contact Steve Simoes of my staff at (802) 241

- 3878 if you have any questions regarding

this matter.

Sincerely,

George Desch

, Director Waste Management & Prevention Division State of Vermont Depart ment of Environmental Conservation Waste Management & Prevention Division 103 South Main Street/West Building Waterbury, VT 05671

- 0404 (802) 241

- 3888 FAX (802) 241

- 3296
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1027 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1027

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 1999

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the 
        Deschutes Resources Conservancy, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Deschutes Resources Conservancy 
Reauthorization Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IN 
              DESCHUTES RESOURCES CONSERVANCY.

    Section 301 of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 
(division B of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-534) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting before the period at 
        the end the following: ``, and up to a total amount of 
        $2,000,000 during each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006''; and
            (2) in subsection (h), by inserting before the period at 
        the end the following: ``and $2,000,000 for each of fiscal 
        years 2002 through 2006''.

            Passed the Senate July 1, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

74-14 

November 13, 1974 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(a) Plans Covered. Requirements of Coverage 

OPINION: 

 Your note of October 18, 1974, was referred to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation by the St. Louis,

Missouri, area office of the Labor-Management Services Administration. 

You wished to know whether pension plans funded by retirement income life insurance policies or by flexible

annuity policies are plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and thus required to pay

premiums. 

Section 4021 of the Act provides mandatory coverage of defined benefit pension plans which (1) have been tax

qualified in practice for the 5 previous plan years, (2) which are presently tax qualified in practice, or (3) which have

been ruled by the Internal Revenue Service to be tax qualified. 

As you know, a plan funded by a retirement income life insurance policy is designed to achieve a defined benefit

objective. However, a plan which is funded by a flexible annuity policy may or may not be designed to achieve a defined

benefit objective. Thus, to the extent these plans meet the requirements of the Act for plans covered discussed in the

previous paragraph, they are required to pay premiums. 

We hope this will be of assistance [*2] and apologize for the delay in our response. 

Steven E. Schanes 

Acting Executive Director
# C_2006326EN.01004502.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/45

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 20 November 2006 — Glaxosmithkline et Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre Rouard

(Case C-462/06)

(2006/C 326/92)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Glaxosmithkline et Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline

Appellants:

Respondent: Jean-Pierre Rouard

Respondent:

Question referred

Does the rule of special jurisdiction stated in Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1), by virtue of which a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued ‘where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings’, apply to proceedings brought by an employee before a court of a Member State against two companies belonging to the same group, one of which, being the one which engaged that employee for the group and refused to re-employ him, is domiciled in that Member State and the other, for which the employee last worked in non-Member States and which dismissed him, in another Member State, when that applicant relies on a clause in the employment contract to claim that the two defendants were his co-employers from whom he claims compensation for his dismissal or does the rule in Article 18(1) of the regulation, by virtue of which, in matters relating to individual contracts of employment, jurisdiction is to be determined by Section 5 of Chapter II, exclude the application of Article 6(1), so that each of the two companies must be sued before the courts of the Member State where it is domiciled?

1

---

(1)   OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2006331EN.01002505.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italie) — Diagram APS Applicazioni Prodotti Software v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Roma 6

(Case C-118/06) (1)

1

(2006/C 331/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

1

---
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2012, by and among DeutscheMortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, Certificate Administrator, PayingAgent and Custodian, Midland Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trusteeand Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor, with respect toCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2012- CCRE1 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesand Timothy S. Ryan, Managing Director of Customer Relationship Management, dohereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

/s/Timothy S. Ryan

TimothyS. Ryan

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|