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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Kim S. Destro, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB ofGreat Lakes Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company");

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report; 

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I areresponsible 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, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision , to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report isbeing prepared;

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

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant'smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors andthe audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which could adversely affect theregistrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting.

August 11, 2003

 

/s/ Kim S. Destro                                         Kim S. DestroVice President & Chief Financial Officer
BEFORE THE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Michael Gurevich and Elena Gurevich,

Complainants,

v.

Compagnia Aerea Italiana S.p.A.

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

DOT-OST-2012-0040

UNCONTESTED MOTION OF COMPAGNIA AEREA ITALIANA S.P.A.

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS ANSWER

TO THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 302.405, Compagnia Aerea Italiana S.p.A. (“Alitalia”), through 

undersigned counsel, respectfully moves for an extension of time, from March 30, 2012, until April 16, 

2012, to answer the third party complaint filed in the above-captioned docket. Alitalia discussed this 

motion with Counsel for Complainants on March 26, 2012, and Counsel for Complainants advised that 

Complainants would have no objection to the extension sought by Alitalia.

Alitalia submits that good cause exists to grant this uncontested motion. Given the nature of the 

legal issues raised in the third party complaint now before the Department, Alitalia requires additional 

time to prepare its responses to the complainants’ claims. Alitalia’s request is in the public interest, as the 

extension sought herein will allow Alitalia to adequately develop its answer, thereby assisting the 

Department in its review of this matter, and would not otherwise unduly delay this proceeding. 
2

Respectfully submitted,

Lawrence Mentz, Esq.

Kaplan, Massamillo & Andrews, L.L.C.

70 East 55th Street

25th Floor

New York, New York 10022 

(212) 991-5919 Telephone

lmentz@kmalawfirm.com

Richard D. Mathias, Esq.

Zuckert Scoutt & Rasenberger, L.L.P.

888 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20006

(202) 298-8660 Telephone

rdmathias@zsrlaw.com

Dated: March 27, 2012 Counsel for Compagnia Aerea Italiana S.p.A.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 27th day of March, 2012, a copy of the foregoing Motion of 

Compagnia Aerea Italiana S.p.A. was served via electronic mail on the parties named below: 

Hanl( Bates, Esq. 

Counsel for Complainants 

Carney Williams Bates Pulliam & Bowman, P.L.L.C. 

hbates@cameywilliams.com 

Samuel Podberesky, Esq. 

Assistant General Counsel for 

A viaiton Enforcement & Proceedings 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

sam. podberesky@dot. gov 

Gregory Woods, Esq. 

Deputy General Counsel 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

gregory. woods@dot. gov 

Bryant Templeton
§ 536.105 Comparing grades under different pay systems. ( a ) *General.* An agency must compare the comparison rates (as defined in § 536.103) of the applicable grades to determine whether a grade of a position is equal to, higher than, or lower than the grade of another position when— ( 1 ) Determining eligibility for grade retention upon movement from a position under a covered pay system to a lower-graded position under a different covered pay system (including determinations under § 536.203 that involve different covered pay systems);
( 2 ) Determining whether grade retention eligibility is lost or grade retention is terminated when an employee is placed in a lower-graded position under a different covered pay system and the action is taken for personal cause or at the employee's request;
( 3 ) Determining whether grade retention eligibility is lost or grade retention is terminated based on movement to a position under a different covered pay system with an equal or higher grade;
( 4 ) Determining whether grade retention eligibility is lost or grade retention is terminated based on declination of a reasonable offer of a position under a different pay system with an equal or higher grade; and
( 5 ) Determining whether pay retention eligibility is lost or a retained rate is terminated when an employee is placed in a lower-graded position under a different covered pay system and the action is taken for personal cause or at the employee's request.
( b ) *Geographic conversion.* When comparing positions under paragraph (a) of this section which are stationed in different geographic locations where different pay schedules apply, the comparison rate of the employee's existing position of record (as in effect before the movement to a position in a different pay system) must be determined as if the official worksite of that position of record were the same as the official worksite of the new or offered position of record. Geographic conversion is not necessary for the purpose of comparing grades if an employee is being moved to (or given a reasonable offer of) a position under the same covered pay system (*i.e.*, same grading structure).
[70 FR 31305, May 31, 2005, as amended at 73 FR 66155, Nov. 7, 2008]
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2309

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2300 Redondo Avenue in

Long Beach, California, as the ‘‘Stephen HornPost Office Building’’.

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2309

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 2300 Redondo Avenue in Long Beach, California, as the ‘‘Stephen Horn Post Office Building’’.

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

•HR 2309 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 2300 Redondo Avenue in Long Beach, California,

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Stephen Horn Post

5 Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Stephen Horn Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 3,

2003.

Attest:

Clerk.
128.109(1)(a) and (2). Appellant contends that the children had been 

placed outside of respondent's home for over 24 months at the time that 

the termination trial commenced. According to appellant, the district 

court erroneously determined that the presumptions did not apply because 

the 14-month time requirement had not been met since the filing of a 

second petition for abuse and neglect under NRS Chapter 432B. 

Even assuming that the presumption set forth in NRS 128.109 

applied here, we conclude that the district court properly found that 

respondent had rebutted the presumption by a preponderance of the 

evidence. In re Parental Rights as to J.D.N., 128 Nev. „ 283 P.3d 

842, 849 (2012); In re Parental Rights of J.L.N., 118 Nev. 621, 625-26, 55 

P.3d 955, 958 (2002). The district court found that respondent's 

compliance with her case plan was reasonable. It further found that, to 

the extent that respondent had not complied with her case plan, such 

noncompliance was due in large part to her financial limitations. Having 

reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court's decision in this 

regard is supported by substantial evidence. In re Parental Rights as to 

D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422, 428, 92 P.3d 1230, 1234 (2004). 

Appellant also contends that the district court abused its 

discretion when it failed to find parental fault. See NRS 128.105(2). 

Appellant argues that there was clear and convincing evidence of parental 

unfitness, neglect, only token efforts by respondent to care for her 

children, and a serious risk of harm if the children were returned to 

respondent's care. Id. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that 

substantial evidence supports the district court's determination that there 

was not clear and convincing evidence of parental fault. See Parental 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

=WNW 
desty 

GUItA 

Parraguirre 

, J. 

J. 

' 2! tf• • 

Right of D.R.H., 120 Nev. at 428, 92 P.3d at 1234; In re Termination of 

Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 795, 8 P.3d 126, 129 (2000). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1 

cc: Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division 

Kristina M. Wildeveld 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'In the opening brief, appellant identified a third appellate issue 

concerning the district court's finding that the evidence did not establish a 

preference for an adoptive resource for the children. Because appellant 

failed to provide any analysis or argument on this issue in the brief, we do 

not address it. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 

n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 17, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30871

Conference Calendar

SHEDDRICK A. HARRIS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT TAPIA,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:05-CV-267

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sheddrick A. Harris, federal prisoner # 12207-076, is

serving a 240-month sentence following a jury conviction for

conspiring to commit murder in retaliation against a federal

informant, threatening to cause and causing bodily injury to a

federal informant with the intent to retaliate, and causing

bodily injury to the wife of a federal informant with the intent

to retaliate. He filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

asserting that the district court had wrongly calculated his base

offense level and had used the wrong version of the Sentencing
No. 06-30871

-2-

Guidelines. The district court construed the action as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and transferred it to the

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Harris seeks to appeal the

transfer order.

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its

own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th

Cir. 1987). We lack jurisdiction over the district court’s

interlocutory transfer order. See Brinar v. Williamson, 245 F.3d

515, 517-18 (5th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2295

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to improve access to advanced 

practice nurses under the Medicaid Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 2, 2003

Mr. OLVER (for himself, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. 

LYNCH, Ms. NORTON, Mr. FROST, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. 

CAPUANO, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. SERRANO, and Mr. KILDEE) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to improve 

access to advanced practice nurses under the Medicaid 

Program.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicaid Nursing In5 centive Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 2295 IH 

1 SEC. 2. IMPROVED ACCESS TO SERVICES OF ADVANCED 

2 PRACTICE NURSES UNDER STATE MEDICAID 

3 PROGRAMS. 

4 (a) PRIMARY CARE CASE MANAGEMENT.—Section 

5 1905(t)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 1396d(t)(2)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) 

7 and inserting the following: 

8 ‘‘(B) A nurse practitioner. 

9 ‘‘(C) A certified nurse-midwife (as defined in 

10 section 1861(gg)). 

11 ‘‘(D) A physician assistant (as defined in sec12 tion 1861(aa)(5)).’’. 

13 (b) FEE-FOR-SERVICE PROGRAM.—Section 

14 1905(a)(21) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(21)) is 

15 amended—

16 (1) by striking ‘‘services furnished by a certified 

17 pediatric nurse practitioner or certified family nurse 

18 practitioner (as defined by the Secretary) which the 

19 certified pediatric nurse practitioner or certified 

20 family nurse practitioner’’ and inserting ‘‘services 

21 furnished by a certified nurse practitioner (as de22 fined by the Secretary) or a clinical nurse specialist 

23 (as defined in section 1861(aa)(5)(B)) which the 

24 practitioner or specialist’’; and 
3

•HR 2295 IH 

1 (2) by striking ‘‘certified pediatric nurse practi2 tioner or certified family nurse practitioner’’ and in3 serting ‘‘practitioner or specialist’’. 

4 (c) INCLUDING IN MIX OF SERVICE PROVIDERS

5 UNDER MEDICAID MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATIONS.—

6 Section 1932(b)(5)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u–

7 2(b)(5)(B)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, with such mix in8 cluding certified nurse practitioners and clinical nurse spe9 cialists’’ after ‘‘services’’. 

10 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall apply to items and services furnished in 

12 calendar quarters beginning on or after 90 days after the 

13 date of the enactment of this Act, without regard to 

14 whether or not final regulations to carry out such amend15 ments have been promulgated by such date.

Æ
§ 875.205 Am I eligible as a retired member of the uniformed services? ( a ) You are eligible to apply for coverage if you are a retired member of the uniformed services entitled to retired or retainer pay (including disability retirement pay).
( b ) You are eligible to apply for coverage if you are a retired reservist who is currently receiving retirement pay.
( c ) You are eligible to apply for coverage as a retired (“grey”) reservist, even if not yet receiving retirement pay.
[68 FR 5534, Feb. 4, 2003, as amended at 70 FR 30607, May 27, 2005]
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Fibria Celulose S.A. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guilherme Perboyre Cavalcanti, Chief Financial Officer and Investor Relations Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(i)                                     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii)                                  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| By:    | /s/ Guilherme   Perboyre Cavalcanti |                                                   |
|--------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name                                | Guilherme Perboyre Cavalcanti                          |   |
|   | Title:                              | Chief Financial Officer and Investor Relations Officer |   |

 

Dated: February 23, 2017

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, 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.

 

----
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


<PAGE>

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 Qlinks  America,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I, Jeff
Huitt,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my 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/ Jeff Huitt
                                         --------------------------------
                                        Jeff Huitt, Chief Financial Officer
Date: August 19, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1145 

CA 15-00548 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

CARRIANN RAY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

ANNETTE FRANCHINI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR 

OF HUMAN RESOURCES, NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION 

DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

O’HARA, O’CONNELL & CIOTOLI, FAYETTEVILLE (STEPHEN CIOTOLI OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

HINMAN STRAUB P.C., ALBANY (JOSEPH M. DOUGHERTY OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme

Court, Oneida County (Bernadette T. Clark, J.), entered November 19,

2014. The order and judgment granted the motion of defendant to

dismiss the complaint and dismissed the complaint. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from

is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the

decision at Supreme Court (see Ingle v Glamore Motor Sales, 73 NY2d

183, 188-190).

Entered: November 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
### §30907. Annual and special meetings

(a) Annual Meetings.—The corporation shall hold an annual meeting at a time and place as provided in the bylaws. At the meeting, the annual reports of the officers and executive board shall be presented, and members of the board shall be elected for the next year.

(b) Special Meetings.—Special meetings of the corporation may be called on notice as provided in the bylaws.

(c) Quorum.—The number of members necessary for a quorum at an annual or special meeting shall be prescribed in the bylaws.

(d) Locations.—The members and the executive board may hold meetings and keep the seal and records of the corporation in or outside the District of Columbia.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1326.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 30907 | 36:26. | June 15, 1916, ch. 148, §6, 39 Stat. 228. |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "The corporation shall hold an annual meeting" are substituted for "An annual meeting of the incorporators, their associates and successors, shall be held once in every year after the year of incorporation" to eliminate unnecessary and executed words.

In subsection (d), the word "records" is substituted for "books, documents, and papers" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.
### §557. Payment of costs of printing

The printing of matter relating to river and harbor works, including all reports, compilations, regulations, and so forth, whose preparation is allowable under Department of the Army regulations, shall be done and paid for out of regular annual appropriations for printing and binding for the Department of the Army.

(July 25, 1912, ch. 253, §13, 37 Stat. 234; July 1, 1916, ch. 209, §1, 39 Stat. 330; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is from section 1 of act July 1, 1916, repealing section 13 of act July 25, 1912.

Section 1 of that act was a provision, following an appropriation for printing for the War Department, of the Sundry Civil Appropriation Act for 1917.

The repealed section 13 of act July 25, 1912, read as follows: "The printing of matter relating to river and harbor works, including all reports, compilations, regulations, and so forth, whose preparation is allowable under War Department regulations, may, upon recommendation of the Chief of Engineers and approval by the Secretary of War, be paid for from river and harbor appropriations."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Department of War designated Department of the Army and title of Secretary of War changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501. Section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, was repealed by section 53 of act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956, enacted "Title 10, Armed Forces" which in sections 3010 to 3013 continued Department of the Army under administrative supervision of Secretary of the Army.