alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Shirley L. Tyler, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Heritage Bankshares of Florida,Inc.; 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-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and 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; and  (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 equivalentfunctions): (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: August 8, 2006 By: /s/ Shirley L. Tyler Shirley L. Tyler, Executive Vice President      and Treasurer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### subpart a—elder justice coordinating council and advisory board on elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation
----

**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended                June 30, 2007 as filed on the date hereof with the Securities and                Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements                of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act                of 1934, as amended; 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/                Chang H. Ahn        |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Chang                H. Ahn            |   |
| Chief                Executive Officer |   |

----
§ 304.1 Terms defined. ( a ) *Act* means the Hobby Protection Act (approved November 29, 1973; Pub. L. 93-167, 87 Stat. 686, (15 U.S.C. 2101 *et seq.*)).
( b ) *Commerce* has the same meanings as such term has under the Federal Trade Commission Act.
( c ) *Commission* means the Federal Trade Commission.
( d ) *Imitation numismatic item* means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified. The term shall not include any re-issue or re-strike of any original numismatic item by the United States or any foreign government.
( e ) *Imitation political item* means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original political item, or which is a reproduction, copy or counterfeit of an original item.
( f ) *Original numismatic item* means anything which has been a part of a coinage or issue which has been used in exchange or has been used to commemorate a person, object, place, or event. Such term includes coins, tokens, paper money, and commemorative medals.
( g ) *Original political item* means any political button, poster, literature, sticker, or any advertisement produced for use in any political cause.
( h ) *Person* means any individual, group, association, partnership, or any other business entity.
( i ) *Regulations* means any or all regulations prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission pursuant to the Act.
( j ) *United States* means the States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
( k ) *Diameter of a reproduction* means the length of the longest possible straight line connecting two points on the perimeter of the reproduction.
[40 FR 5496, Feb. 6, 1975, as amended at 53 FR 38942, Oct. 4, 1988]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vernon Hunter, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 631]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), rendered March 31, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the defendant’s conviction of murder in the second degree to manslaughter in the second degree, and vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Nassau County, for sentencing on the conviction of manslaughter in the second degree.

The defendant’s contention that his conviction of depraved indifference murder *(see*Penal Law § 125.25 [2]) was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 20-21 [1995]). Nevertheless, under the circumstances of this case, we review the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6] [a]).

The evidence at trial established that the defendant shot the *969deceased once, causing his death. The jury, apparently crediting the defendant’s statement that he did not intend to kill the deceased, acquitted him of intentional murder, but convicted him of depraved indifference murder and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Arguing that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish depraved indifference murder, the defendant asks this Court to modify the judgment by reducing his conviction of murder in the second degree to the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the second degree. We do so because we agree with the defendant that, except in rare and extraordinary circumstances, one person’s attack on another, no matter how violent or how great the risk of harm it creates, does not rise to the level of depravity and indifference to life contemplated by the statute defining depraved indifference murder *(see People v Suarez,*6 NY3d 202 [2005]; *People v Payne,*3 NY3d 266 [2004]). Accordingly, we reduce the defendant’s conviction of murder in the second degree to one of manslaughter in the second degree, and we remit the matter for sentencing on that charge *(see People v McMillon,*31 AD3d 136 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.
§ 1502.38 Administrative record of a hearing. ( a ) The record of a hearing consists of— ( 1 ) The regulation or notice of opportunity for hearing that gave rise to the hearing;
( 2 ) All objections and requests for hearing filed with the Office of the Secretary under §§ 1502.5 and 1502.6;
( 3 ) The notice of hearing published under § 1502.13;
( 4 ) All notices of participation filed under § 1502.16;
( 5 ) All Federal Register notices pertinent to the proceeding;
( 6 ) All submissions filed under § 1502.24, e.g., the submissions required by § 1502.25, all other documentary evidence and written testimony, pleadings, statements of position, briefs, and other similar documents;
( 7 ) The transcript, written order, and all other documents relating to the prehearing conference, prepared under § 1502.30;
( 8 ) All documents relating to any motion for summary decision under § 1502.31;
( 9 ) All documents of which official notice is taken under § 1502.33;
( 10 ) All pleadings filed under § 1502.34;
( 11 ) All documents relating to any interlocutory appeal under § 1502.35;
( 12 ) All transcripts prepared under § 1502.36; and
( 13 ) Any other document relating to the hearing and filed with the Office of the Secretary by the presiding officer or any participant.
( b ) The record of the administrative proceeding is closed— ( 1 ) With respect to the taking of evidence, when specified by the presiding officer; and
( 2 ) With respect to pleadings, at the time specified in § 1502.34(a) for the filing of briefs.
( c ) The presiding officer may reopen the record to receive further evidence at any time before the filing of the initial decision.
#### In the Matter of Tariq J. Mehta, Individually and as Fifty Percent Shareholder of New Creek Business, Inc., Appellant, v Naveed Hussain, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 544]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), dated April 26, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order, among other things, denied petitioner’s application to hold respondent in contempt and granted the cross motion of respondent for leave to renew his prior motion for partial vacatur of the arbitration award.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
#### Fire Association of Philadelphia, Respondent, v. General Handkerchief Corp., Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Peck, P, J., and Callahan, J., dissent and vote to reverse and deny the motion. [See *post,*p. 792.]
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Action Powersports, Inc., d/b/a Wells 

Cycle, Inc., and Carl M. Wells, Appellants

No. 06-16-00020-CV v.

1STEL, Inc., Appellee

Appeal from the 413th District Court of 

Johnson County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

C201300332). Opinion delivered by 

Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellants, Action Powersports, Inc., d/b/a Wells Cycle, Inc., 

and Carl M. Wells, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED AUGUST 5, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael F. Wiley, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 350]

*1353Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Francis A. Affronti, J.), rendered June 19, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to the police, the identification of him by a witness resulting from a showup identification procedure, and the physical evidence seized from him on the ground that the police unlawfully detained him prior to his formal arrest. We reject that contention. The police had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop and detain defendant for a showup identification procedure *(see People v Casillas,*289 AD2d 1063 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 752 [2002]). Defendant was stopped approximately two blocks from the scene of the burglary by a police officer who heard the radio transmission concerning the burglary and observed that defendant matched the description of the suspect provided by a neighbor. The record establishes that, although the officer handcuffed defendant prior to transporting him to the crime scene for the showup identification procedure, defendant was not taken to the police station at that time, the conversation between defendant and the officer was congenial, and the crime scene was a short distance from the location where defendant was stopped by the officer. The record further establishes that defendant was not interrogated during the brief detention and, indeed, the officer stopped defendant from speaking to him, administered *Miranda*warnings and discontinued conversation with defendant until after the showup identification occurred. Defendant was transported to the police station only after the witness had identified him, and he was then formally charged. Thus, we agree with the People that the police “diligently pursued a minimally intrusive means *1354of investigation likely to confirm or dispel suspicion quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant” *(People v Hicks,*68 NY2d 234, 242 [1986]; *see also Casillas,*289 AD2d at 1063-1064). Present — Kehoe, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
[Civil No. 245.

Filed March 7, 1889.]

[73 Pac. 399.]

#### PIMA COUNTY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. J. H. MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant.

1. Officers—Territorial Courts—Clerk of Court—Pees—Power of Legislature.—The clerk of the district court is not entitled in all cases to the fees as prescribed by the statutes of the United States. The legislature has power to fix a salary for the business of the. territorial court, ■ having complete control of all cases except those in which the United States is a party.

*60APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Pima William H. Barnes, Judge.

Affirmed.

Haynes & Mitchell, for Appellant.

H. R. Jeffords, and S. Franklin, for Appellee.

BARNES, J.

Martin is clerk of the district court of the first judicial district. His contention is that as such clerk he is entitled in all cases to the fees as prescribed by the statutes of the United States, and that the legislature, by fixing a salary for the business of the territorial court, exceeded its power. We think not. The legislature has complete control of all the cases except those in which the United States is a party.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

All concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Mary Rheinwald, Respondent, for Compensation for the Death of Robert Rheinwald, v. Builders' Brick and Supply Company, Employer, and Fidelity and Deposit Comany of Baltimore, Maryland, Insurance Carrier, Appellants.

Motion for reargument denied.
SANDEE BRYAN MARION CHIEF JUSTICE KAREN ANGELINI MARIALYN BARNARD REBECA C. MARTINEZ PATRICIA 0. ALVAREZ LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA JASON PULLIAM

JUSTICES 

## COURT OF APPEALS FOURTH COURTOFAPPEALS DISTRICT

CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER 300 DOLOROSA. SUITE 3200 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037 WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4THCOA.ASPX

Dan Pozza Law Offices ofDan Pozza 239 East Commerce Street 

### SanAntonio, TX 78205 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
Robert B. Gilbreath 

### Hawkins, Parnell & Thackston, L.L.P. 

### Highland ParkPlace 4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75205 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * 

### January 14, 2015

Eric Turton 

### 6039 Whitby Road #202 San Antonio, TX 78240
Carl Kolb 926 Chulie Dr 

### San Antonio, TX 78216-6522 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * KEITH E. HO'ITLE CLERK OFCOURT

TELEPHONE (210)335-2635
FACSIMILE NO. (210)335-2762



## RE: Court ofAppeals Number: 04-13-00239-CV Trial Court Case Number: 2010-CI-14280 

## Style: LawOfficeofOscarC. Gonzalez, Inc. and OscarGonzalez

v. Isabel Sloan 

## The Appellee's Vacation Letter in the above styled and numbered cause has this date been received from Carl Kolb. 

### Very truly yours, KTH E. HOTTLE. CLERK



# k^L g±z==± Jonathan Quintero 

### DeputyClerk, Ext. 53220
## Proposed Rule: Final Confidentiality Determinations for Nine Subparts and Amendments to Subpart A and I under

the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule Meeting Documentation : Phone Communication with 3M , March 16 , 2012 Date Staff Contact Information

(Name, email, phone #) Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.) Written Comments Provided? Did they also submit to Docket? Date s ent to

EPA- CCD

3/ 16/12 Lisa Grogan-McCulloch

Groganmcculloch.lisa@epa.gov 202 - 343 - 9743 3M On the phone: Jeff Muffat - Environmental Regulatory Affairs Dana Schnobrich - Senior Environmental Engineering Specialist, Materials Resources Division Kurt Werner - Business Manager, Electronics Markets Materials Division Mike Parent - Senior Technical Manager, Electronics Markets Materials Division Karna Peters - Outside General Counsel Tom Herzberg - Division Scientist, Materials Resource Division Jim Baker - Senior Intellectual Property Counsel Among the issues: CBI determinations and trade secret concerns for subpart L Submitted comments to the do cket
#### In the Matter of Bakers Mutual Insurance Company of New York, Appellant. Department of Health of the City of New York, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [See *post,*p. 936.]
No: 15-035 June 3, 2015

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Licensing Board to Hear Oral Arguments

on Diablo Canyon Issues July 9 in Rockville, MD

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will hold two oral 

argument sessions Tuesday, July 9, in Rockville, Md., concerning separate legal issues regarding the 

Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California. The Board is the independent body within the NRC 

that conducts adjudicatory hearings and renders decisions on legal challenges to licensing actions.

Both sessions will be held in the Board’s hearing room on the third floor of the NRC’s 

Two White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville. The first session, starting at 

9 a.m. EDT, covers the license renewal process for Diablo Canyon, near San Luis Obispo, Calif. The 

oral arguments will address four new contentions filed by the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. 

The second session will follow the first, and is expected to start at approximately 1 p.m. EDT. It 

concerns a Commission referral of a Friends of the Earth petition. The oral arguments will address the 

group’s assertion the NRC issued a “de facto” license amendment to Diablo Canyon. Members of the 

public and media can observe both oral arguments, but participation will be limited to lawyers for 

Mothers for Peace, Friends of the Earth, plant owner Pacific Gas & Electric, and the NRC staff. 

To view the proceedings via webstreaming, or listen by telephone, please contact the Board’s 

law clerk, Alana Wase at alana.wase@nrc.gov or 301-415-6693 no later than July 2. Those planning to 

attend the oral arguments in person should arrive at least 15 minutes early to allow time for security 

screening, including searches of hand-carried items such as briefcases or backpacks. No signs will be 

permitted in the hearing room.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Sustainableand healthy communities: strategic research action plan ... /**
 
2012-16 | 2016-19
 
SuDoc Number:EP 11.2:C 73/2/
Item Number:0431-Y (online)
CGP systemNumber:000984147
 
June 25, 2019
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3670 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3670

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2012

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the Transportation Security Administration to comply with 
     the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.

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

SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND 
              REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT TO THE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 
              ADMINISTRATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 111(d) of the Aviation and Transportation 
Security Act (49 U.S.C. 44935 note; Public Law 107-71) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(1) General authority.--Except as provided in paragraph 
        (2), and notwithstanding''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Uniformed services employment and reemployment rights 
        act.--In carrying out the functions authorized under paragraph 
        (1), the Under Secretary shall be subject to the provisions set 
        forth in chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date that is 270 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 30, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```