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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

I, Jacob Bar-Shalom, certify
that:

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ACRO
Inc.2.Based on my
knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact oromit to date a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The small business issuers other
certifying officers 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) 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

(c) 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 control over financial reporting.

5. The small business issuers other
certifying officers 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 controls and procedures for financial
reporting.

Date: May 17, 2006

Signature: /s/ Jacob
Bar-ShalomTitle: Acting Chief Financial
Officer(Principal Financial Officer
andPrincipal Accounting
Officer)

---
#### Rudolph Weiss, Doing Business under the Name of Beverly Pharmacy, Appellant-Respondent, v. Irving Maidman, Doing Business as Beverly Hotel, Respondent-Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Present— Cohn, J. P., Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ. [See 283 App. Div. 656.]
NRC NAMES RESIDENT INSPECTOR FOR

WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Atlanta have selected Eric Patterson as a 

resident inspector for construction activities at Watts Bar Unit 2, located near Spring City, Tenn., about 

60 miles southwest of Knoxville. The plant is owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority and Watts Bar 

Unit 1 began operation at the site in 1996. 

Patterson joined the NRC in June 2010 as a construction project and

mechanical construction inspector. Before coming to the NRC, he was a 

project test manager, responsible for research and development system tests 

to support the start up of combined cycle power plant operations in the U.S.

and Europe. Patterson also worked leading teams of engineers designing

heating, ventilation and air conditioning, piping, and fire protection systems 

for an architectural and engineering firm in Jacksonville, Fla. He completed 

four years of active duty in the U.S. Navy and graduated from The Virginia 

Military Institute with a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering.

“Eric Patterson has the experience and commitment to help ensure the remaining construction 

of Watts Bar Unit 2 is completed according to NRC regulations and in a way that protects people and 

the environment,” said NRC Region II Deputy Regional Administrator for Construction Fred Brown. 

Patterson joins Senior Resident Inspector Tomy Nazario, Resident Inspector Russ Lewis and 

Acting Resident Inspector David Failla, who is serving a rotational assignment at Watts Bar.

Each operating U.S. commercial nuclear power plant site has at least two NRC resident 

inspectors. They serve as the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections, 

monitoring significant work projects, and interacting with plant workers and the public. Inspectors can 

serve for up to seven years at any one site. Construction sites also have their own resident inspectors 

and the number assigned is dependent on the work at each site.

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES link on 

the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's 

website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No: II-12-059

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416 

 October 11, 2012 

E-mail: OPA2.Resource@nrc.gov
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002 

     In connection with the Annual Report of MedicalInternational Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the periodending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), I, Karim Menassa, President, Chairman of the Boardand Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

| (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company.                                                      |

| \s\ Karim Menassa                   |
|-------------------------------------|
| Karim Menassa                       |
| President and Chairman of the Board |

January 17, 2002 

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-11932

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80188-DTKH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL ANGEL HERNANDEZ-ABRAHAM,

a.k.a. Miguel Hernandez, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(December 30, 2013)

Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-11932 Date Filed: 12/30/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Miguel Hernandez-Abraham appeals his 77-month sentence after pleading 

guilty to one count of illegal reentry into the United States after having been 

deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). On appeal, he argues the 

district judge lacked authority to increase his sentence, based upon prior 

convictions that were neither charged in the indictment nor proved to a jury beyond 

a reasonable doubt. We affirm.

We review constitutional sentencing issues de novo. United States v. Steed, 

548 F.3d 961, 978 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). In Almendarez-Torres v. United 

States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 1222 (1998), the Supreme Court 

held the government does not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a defendant 

had prior convictions or allege those prior convictions in the indictment in order to 

use them to enhance a defendant’s sentence under a federal statute. Although the 

Supreme Court has since expressed some doubt as to whether Almendarez-Torres

was correctly decided, it has explicitly declined to revisit that decision. Apprendi 

v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362 (2000); see also 

Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2160 n.1 (2013) (declining to revisit 

Almendarez-Torres, because the parties did not contest that decision). Rather, the 

Supreme Court has maintained, “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact 

that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum 

Case: 13-11932 Date Filed: 12/30/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi, 

530 U.S. at 490, 120 S. Ct. at 2362-63.

Furthermore, we since have held Apprendi did not overrule 

Almendarez-Torres. United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 846 (11th Cir. 2009); 

United States v. Gibson, 434 F.3d 1234, 1246-47 (11th Cir. 2006). We have also 

recognized that we are “bound to follow Almendarez-Torres unless and until the 

Supreme Court itself overrules that decision.” United States v. Thomas, 242 F.3d 

1028, 1035 (11th Cir. 2001). Because Hernandez-Abraham concedes binding 

precedent forecloses his argument, the district judge erred by enhancing his 

sentence based on prior convictions not charged in the indictment or proved to a 

jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-11932 Date Filed: 12/30/2013 Page: 3 of 3
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R AMZ I E I D A WW AD AL R AWAS HD E H, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73619 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 263- 702 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R a m z i E i d A w w a d A l r aw a s hde h, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of J or dan, pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , and pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve 

# FI LED JU L 24 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 73619 2 j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence, R ah i m zadeh v. H

older , 613 F . 3d 916, 920 ( 9th C i r . 2010) , a nd w e de nythe pe t i t i on f o rr e v i e w. A l raw as hd eh fa i l s t o chal l enge the agency’ s di sposi t i ve det erm i nat i on that h is a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n w a s tim e - b arr e d . Se e M a r t i n ez - Se rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 1256, 1259- 60 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( i s s ue s tha ta r e nota ddr e s s e d i n the a r gum e nt p o rtio n o f

ab r ie f a r e d e e m e dw a iv e d ) . H e a ls o d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e d e n ia l o f h is C A T c la im . Se e i d. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n a s t o h i s a s y l u m a n dC AT c la im s . A l r aw a s hde h c l a i m s tha tbe c aus e he a nd hi s gi r l f r i e nd w e r e i nvol ve d i n a rom ant i c r el at i on shi p b ef ore m arri age, hi s gi rl fr i end’ s f ather threa t ened and st al ked hi m . S ub st ant i alevi dence s up po rt s the agency’ s f i nd i ng thatA l raw as hd eh fa i l ed to d e m o n s tr a te h e w a s o rw ill b e h arm e db yf o r c e s th e g o v e rn m e n t o f J o r d an is u n w illin g o ru n ab le to c o n tr o l. See Castro-P er ezv. G on zales , 409 F . 3d 1069, 1072 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). A cco rd i n g l y, h i s w i th h o l d i n g o f rem o v al cl ai m fai l s. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0 165 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. IOLA MAERRIEA JOHNSTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 29 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 22 2021

10/22/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0165
#### Carl De Santis, Appellant, v. Joseph Sgambellone, Respondent.

Memorandum: The application made was to vacate the order and warrant. Even though it be considered as a motion to open the default, the papers on which it was founded are insufficient. Such an application should have contained a proposed answer or, in the alternative, an offer to pay the accumulated rent, with costs, into court. As no answer was interposed, there was no issue to be tried and the order should have provided for the payment into court of the accumulated rent. Although we find it necessary to reverse the orders made, we see no reason why the court should not entertain a new application to open the default on proper papers. All concur. (The order and amended order vacate a final order and warrant of eviction previously granted to petitioner.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Love, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.
§ 254.2 Deceptive trade or business names. ( a ) It is deceptive for an Industry Member to misrepresent, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, the nature of the school, its Accreditation, programs of instruction, methods of teaching, or any other material fact through the use of any trade or business name, label, insignia, or designation, or in any other manner.
( b ) It is deceptive for an Industry Member to deceptively conceal in any way the fact that it is a school or to misrepresent, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, through the use of a trade or business name or in any other manner that: ( 1 ) It is a part of or connected with a branch, bureau, or agency of the U.S. Government, including, but not limited to, the U.S. Department of Education, or of any State, or civil service commission; or
( 2 ) It is an employment agency or an employment agent or authorized training facility for any industry or business.
[78 FR 68990, Nov. 19, 2013]
§ 500.28 Variety packages. ( a ) A variety package is a package intended for retail sale, containing two or more individual packages or units of similar but not identical commodities. Commodities which are generically the same but which differ in weight or mass, measure, volume, appearance or quality are considered similar but not identical. The declaration of net quantity for a variety package will be expressed as follows: ( 1 ) The number of units for each identical commodity followed by the weight or mass, volume, or measure of that commodity: and
( 2 ) The total quantity by weight or mass, volume, measure, and count, as appropriate, of the variety package. The statement of total quantity shall appear as the last item in the declaration of net quantity and shall not be of greater prominence than other terms used. Examples:
( i ) “2 sponges 41 ⁄ 2 ins. × 4 ins. × 3 ⁄ 4 in. (11.4 cm × 10.1 cm × 1.9 cm); 1 sponge 41 ⁄ 2 ins. × 8 ins. × 3 ⁄ 4 in. (11.4 cm × 20.3 cm × 1.9 cm); 4 sponges 21 ⁄ 2 ins. × 4 ins. × 1 ⁄ 2 in. (6.3 cm × 10.1 cm × 1.2 cm) Total: 7 sponges”.
( ii ) “2 soap bars Net Wt. 3.2 ozs. (90 g) each; 1 soap bar Net Wt. 5.0 ozs. (141 g). Total: 3 bars Net Wt. 11.4 ozs. (323 g).”
( iii ) Liquid Shoe Polish: “1 Brown 3 fl. ozs. (88 mL); 1 Black 3 fl. ozs. (88 mL); 1 White 5 fl. ozs. (147 mL). Total: 11 fl. ozs. (325 mL).”
( iv ) Picnic Ware: “34 spoons; 33 forks; 33 knives. Total: 100 pieces.”
( b ) When the individual units in a variety package are either packaged or labeled and are intended for retail sale as individual units, each unit shall be labeled in compliance with the applicable regulations under this part 500.
No: IV-15-026 September 4, 2015

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

 Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

NRC Issues Confirmatory Action Letter to International Isotopes, Inc.

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Confirmatory Action Letter documenting 

actions that International Isotopes, Inc., has agreed to take before resuming some operations at its 

facility in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The NRC is also conducting a follow-up inspection to learn more about 

the incident.

 The letter formalizes commitments company officials have made to the NRC following an 

incident on Aug. 20 in which a technician received a radiation exposure in excess of NRC limits. The 

worker was preparing to transfer a shielded Cobalt-60 source into another shielded container when it 

became stuck. In attempting to move it, the worker received a brief radiation exposure.

 While no immediate adverse health effects to the technician are expected, the worker was sent 

to a local hospital for a blood test to help determine the extent of his exposure. The NRC dispatched an 

inspector to the site on August 21 to review the sequence of events associated with the exposure and to 

monitor the licensee’s immediate response and follow-up actions. 

 “We are conducting a follow-up inspection to better understand the circumstances that 

contributed to this incident and to evaluate actions that International Isotopes has taken to ensure their 

workers are adequately protected,” said Region IV Administrator Marc Dapas.

 The NRC will develop a detailed chronology of the event, evaluate the adequacy of licensee 

actions in response to the incident and assess the factors which may have contributed to the event. The 

NRC will prepare a written report that will be made publicly available.

 Following a conversation with NRC officials, the company has agreed not to conduct similar 

transfers of radioactive materials at its Idaho Falls facility until completion of corrective actions. The 

company has also agreed to provide the NRC with calculations and evaluations used to determine the 

worker’s radiation exposure, perform a detailed root cause analysis of the event, and describe corrective 

actions to prevent recurrence.

 Issuance of the Confirmatory Action Letter does not preclude the NRC from taking other 

additional actions for any violations of NRC requirements that may be identified.
§ 259.2 Definitions. For the purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply: *Alternative fueled vehicle.* Any vehicle that qualifies as a covered vehicle under part 309 of this chapter.
*Automobile.* Any new passenger automobile, medium duty passenger vehicle, or light truck for which a fuel economy label is required under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 32901 *et seq.*) or rules promulgated thereunder, the equitable or legal title to which has never been transferred by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer to an ultimate purchaser or lessee. For the purposes of this part, the terms “vehicle” and “car” have the same meaning as “automobile.”
*Dealer.* Any person located in the United States or any territory thereof engaged in the sale or distribution of new automobiles to the ultimate purchaser.
*EPA.* The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
*EPA city fuel economy estimate.* The city fuel economy determined in accordance with the city test procedure as defined and determined pursuant to 40 CFR part 600, subpart D.
*EPA combined fuel economy estimate.* The fuel economy value determined for a vehicle (or vehicles) by harmonically averaging the city and highway fuel economy values, weighted 0.55 and 0.45 respectively, determined pursuant to 40 CFR part 600, subpart D.
*EPA driving range estimate.* An estimate of the number of miles a vehicle will travel between refueling as defined and determined pursuant to 40 CFR part 600, subpart D.
*EPA fuel economy estimate.* The average number of miles traveled by an automobile per volume of fuel consumed (*i.e.,* Miles-Per-Gallon (“MPG”) rating) as calculated under 40 CFR part 600, subpart D.
*EPA highway fuel economy estimate.* The highway fuel economy determined in accordance with the highway test procedure as defined and determined pursuant to 40 CFR part 600, subpart D.
*Flexible fueled vehicle.* Any motor vehicle (or motor vehicle engine) engineered and designed to be operated on any mixture of two or more different fuels.
*Fuel.* ( 1 ) Gasoline and diesel fuel for gasoline- or diesel-powered automobiles;
( 2 ) Electricity for electrically-powered automobiles;
( 3 ) Alcohol for alcohol-powered automobiles;
( 4 ) Natural gas for natural gas-powered automobiles; or
( 5 ) Any other fuel type used in a vehicle for which EPA requires a fuel economy label under 40 CFR part 600, subpart D.
*Manufacturer.* Any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new automobiles, including any person importing new automobiles for resale and any person who acts for, and is under the control, of such manufacturer, assembler, or importer in connection with the distribution of new automobiles.
*Model type.* A unique combination of car line, basic engine, and transmission class as defined by 40 CFR part 600, subpart D.
*Ultimate purchaser or lessee.* The first person, other than a dealer purchasing in his or her capacity as a dealer, who in good faith purchases a new automobile for purposes other than resale or leases such vehicle for his or her personal use.
*Vehicle configuration.* The unique combination of automobile features, as defined in 40 CFR part 600.