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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Ted S. Smith, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q as amended by this Form 10-Q/A ofMarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc.;

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officers 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 andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures****and 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  October 20, 2005 | By:    | /s/  TED S. SMITH         |
|-----------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                              |   | Ted  S. Smith             |
|                              |   | Chief  Accounting Officer |

 

----
### §12783. Conditions of contracts

#### (a) Eligible organizations

The Secretary shall carry out this part insofar as is practicable through contract with—

(1) a participating jurisdiction or agency thereof;

(2) a public purpose organization established pursuant to State or local legislation and responsible to the chief elected official of a participating jurisdiction;

(3) an agency or authority established by two or more participating jurisdictions to carry out activities consistent with the purposes of this subchapter;

(4) a national or regional nonprofit organization that has a membership comprised predominantly of entities or officials of entities that qualify under paragraph (1), (2), or (3); or

(5) a professional and technical services company or firm that has demonstrated capacity to provide services under this part.

#### (b) Contract terms

Contracts under this part shall be for not more than 3 years and shall provide not more than 20 percent of the operating budget of the contracting organization in any one year. Within any fiscal year, contracts with any one organization may not be entered into for a total of more than 40 percent of the funds appropriated under this part in that fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title II, §243, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4118; Pub. L. 111–8, div. I, title II, §229(3), Mar. 11, 2009, 123 Stat. 978.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2009—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111–8 substituted "40 percent of the funds" for "20 percent of the funds".
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Raul CHAVEZ-RIOS, Appellant.

No. 06-3156.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 6, 2007.

Filed: Sept. 14, 2007.

John H. Lammers, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux City, LA, for Appellee.

Raul Chavez-Rios, Bastrop, TX, pro se.

Pamela A. Wingert, Spirit Lake, LA, for Appellant.

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

*368[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Raul Chavez-Rios (Chavez-Rios) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a park, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), 860(a), and 846 (Count 1); and distributing methamphetarnine within 1,000 feet of a park, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 860(a) (Counts 2-4). Chavez-Rios acknowledged before entering his plea that he was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison on Count 1. The district court1 sentenced Chavez-Rios to the statutory minimum 120 months’ imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised release with the sentences on the' counts to run concurrently. On appeal, Chavez-Rios’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing the sentence is unreasonable under *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). This argument is unavailing. Because Chavez-Rios did not qualify for a substantial-assistance departure or for safety-valve relief, the district court had no authority to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum. *See United States v. Gregg,*451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir.2006); *United States v. Chacon,*330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir.2003).

After reviewing the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4115 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require, as a condition on the 

receipt by a State of certain funds for veterans employment and training, 

that the State ensures that training received by a veteran while on 

active duty is taken into consideration in granting certain State certifications or licenses, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 29, 2012 

Mr. STIVERS (for himself and Mr. WALZ of Minnesota) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require, as a 

condition on the receipt by a State of certain funds 

for veterans employment and training, that the State 

ensures that training received by a veteran while on 

active duty is taken into consideration in granting certain 

State certifications or licenses, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Helping Iraq and Af5 ghanistan Veterans Return to Employment at Home Act’’ 

6 or the ‘‘HIRE at HOME Act’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4115 IH

1 SEC. 2. STATE CONSIDERATION OF MILITARY TRAINING IN 

2 GRANTING CERTAIN STATE CERTIFICATIONS 

3 AND LICENSES AS A CONDITION ON THE RE4 CEIPT OF FUNDS FOR VETERANS EMPLOY5 MENT AND TRAINING. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4102A of title 38, United 

7 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(9)(A) As a condition of a grant or contract under 

10 which funds are made available to a State in order to carry 

11 out section 4103A or 4104 of this title for any program 

12 year, the Secretary shall require the State to demonstrate 

13 that when the State approves or denies a certification or 

14 license described in subsection (b) for a veteran the State 

15 takes into consideration any training received by the vet16 eran while serving on active duty in the Armed Forces. 

17 ‘‘(B) A certification or license described in this sub18 paragraph is any of the following: 

19 ‘‘(i) A certification to be a State tested nursing 

20 assistant or a certified nursing assistant. 

21 ‘‘(ii) A certification to be a registered nurse. 

22 ‘‘(iii) A certification to be an emergency medical 

23 technician. 

24 ‘‘(iv) A commercial driver’s license.’’. 

25 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

26 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to a program year 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4115 IH

1 beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this 

2 Act. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 31.29 Arbitration or other dispute settlement procedures.

Each self-regulatory organization which has members who are registered as leverage transaction merchants must be able to demonstrate its capability to promulgate rules and to conduct proceedings which provide a fair, equitable and expeditious procedure, through arbitration or otherwise, for the voluntary settlement of a leverage customer's claim or grievance brought against any member leverage transaction merchant or any employee of a member leverage transaction merchant. Such rules shall be consistent with the rules set forth in part 180 of this chapter governing contract market arbitration and dispute settlement procedures.

[54 FR 41084, Oct. 5, 1989; 54 FR 46503, Nov. 3, 1989]
#### § 203.1 Application of the rules of this part.

The rules of this part apply only to investigations conducted by the Commission. They do not apply to adjudicative or rulemaking proceedings.
#### § 453.7 Comprehension of disclosures.

To prevent the unfair or deceptive acts or practices specified in §§ 453.2 through 453.5, funeral providers must make all disclosures required by those sections in a clear and conspicuous manner. Providers shall not include in the casket, outer burial container, and general price lists, required by §§ 453.2(b)(2)-(4), any statement or information that alters or contradicts the information required by this part to be included in those lists.
SERVED: JUNE 14, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASf:[INGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

JOSEPH MOESSER 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Case) 

DMS No. FAA-2011-1286 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION 

1 Lt P 

•• 

The parties have filed ajointMotion for Ruling on the Second Motion for 

Decision ("Joint Motion"). 1he Motion asks that the substantive matters in:tssue be 

adjudged on the pleadings and discovery filed to date. The parties, the Federal Aviation 

Administration ("Complainant") and Joseph Moesser ("Respondent"), state in support 

that the papers filed in the docket establish that the material facts relevant to the question 

of liability are not in dispute. ·They assert that the matters in contention involve questions 

of law only. The parties further move that the ruling they seek refrain from considering 

the issue of penalty: "the question of sanction will be amenable to settlem~nt .once the 

question of liability has been decided," they state. , 

The Joint Motion is hereby GRANTED. 

In view of the foregoing, 

1 -An Initial Decision ("I.D.") adjudicating the charges filed in t!1e Complaint 

will issue in due course; ~ .. -

00 
2 

2 - Giving due regard to considerations of judicial economy, the public policy 

favoring settlements, and the declaration of the parties, the I.D. wm refrain 

from considering the issue of penalty; - -

3 - The issue of penalty will be considered and, if not settled by the parties by a ~ 

date to be determined by subsequent order, adjudicated following issuance of· 

the I.D.; and 

4- All other motions not specifically granted are hereby DENIED. 

Richard 

(l~c~ C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

~-· 

•• 

"!_ 

'~ 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001 

ONE COPY 

Gregory G. Skordas, Respondent's Counsel 

Skordas, Caston & Hyde, LLC 

341 South Main Street, Suite 303 

Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2707 

TEL: 801-531-7444 

FAX: 801-531-8885 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, WA 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-1286 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 .,, 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 

2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
VACATED and Opinion Filed May 1 9 , 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00688

- CV

RICHARD P. DALE, JR. , Appellant V. PLAZA AT TURTLE CREE K RESIDENCES ASSOCIATI ON, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 05411



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Myers

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to vacate the judgment below and dismiss the

appeal. The parties have informed the Court that they have settled their differences.

Accordingly, we grant the parties’ motion

, vacate the trial court’s judgment

, and dismiss the

underly ing case and the appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A)

.

140688 F.P05 / Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RICHARD P. DALE, JR., Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00688

- CV V.

PLAZA AT TURTLE CREEK RESIDENCES ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 05411. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Fillmore and Evans, participating.

In acco rdance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is VACATED and this appeal and the underlying case is DISMISSED

. Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee Plaza at Turtle Creek Residences Associat ion, Inc. recover its costs of the appeal from appellant Richard P. Dale, Jr.

Judgment entered this 19th day of May, 2015.
### §1437j–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–276, title V, §582(a)(5), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2643

Section, Pub. L. 97–35, title III, §329A, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 409, related to payment for development managers of projects assisted under this chapter.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective and applicable beginning upon Oct. 1, 1999, except as otherwise provided, with provision that Secretary may implement the repeal before such date, and with savings provision, see section 503 of Pub. L. 105–276, set out as an Effective Date of 1998 Amendment note under section 1437 of this title.
### §18402. Research collaboration

#### (a) Department of Defense

The Administrator shall continue to coordinate with the Secretary of Defense, through the National Partnership for Aeronautics Testing, to develop and implement joint plans for those elements of the Nation's research, development, testing, and engineering infrastructure that are of common interest and use.

#### (b) Federal Aviation Administration

The Administrator shall continue to coordinate with, and work closely with, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, under the framework of the Senior Policy Council, in development of the Next Generation Air Transportation Program. The Administrator shall encourage the Council to explore areas for greater collaboration, including areas where NASA can help to accelerate the development and demonstration of NextGen technologies.

(Pub. L. 111–267, title IX, §903, Oct. 11, 2010, 124 Stat. 2835.)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50244

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PETE RIVERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. 1:07-CR-164-18

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The attorney appointed to represent Pete Rivera has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 18, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-50244 Document: 00511481352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2011
No. 10-50244

738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rivera has

filed a response in which he asserts that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and he requests new counsel.

The issue whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to file

a notice of appeal has already been resolved and presents no nonfrivolous issue

for appeal. Further, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel generally “cannot

be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the

allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). It is not apparent from the record

that Rivera’s sentence was the result of ineffective assistance. Thus, the record

is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of any other claims of ineffective assistance.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record

reflected therein, as well as Rivera’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no unwaived, nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Rivera’s request for new counsel is

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 10-50244 Document: 00511481352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2011
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 71701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27090]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2004-17136; Airspace Docket No. 04-AGL-08]


Modification of Class D Airspace; Camp Douglas, WI; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error contained in a final rule that 
was published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, August 24, 2004 (69 
FR 51945). The final rule modified Class D airspace at Camp Douglas, 
WI.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, November 25, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Mark Reeves, Central Service 
Office, Airspace Branch, AGL-520, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, telephone: (847) 294-7477.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    Federal Register document 04-19374 published on Tuesday, August 24, 
2004 (69 FR 51945), modified Class D airspace at Camp Douglas, WI. A 
portion of the Class D airspace radius was left out of the legal 
description. This action corrects this error.


0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the error for 
the Class D airspace, Camp Douglas, WI, as published in the Federal 
Register Tuesday, August 24, 2004, (69 FR 51945). (FR Doc. 04-19374), 
is corrected as follows:

PART 71--[AMENDED]


Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 51945, Column 3; change the legal description to read:
    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 
3,400 feet MSL within a 5.2-mile radius of Volk Field from the Volk 
Field 100[deg] bearing clockwise to the Volk Field 250[deg] bearing, 
and within a 5.8-mile radius of the Volk Field 250[deg] bearing 
clockwise to the Volk Field 110[deg] bearing. This Class D airspace is 
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by 
a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be 
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on November 16, 2004.
Nancy B. Kort,
Area Director, Central Terminal Operations.
[FR Doc. 04-27090 Filed 12-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
### §15534. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15534 was editorially reclassified as section 21134 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Donald Harper et al., as Surviving Trustees under the Will of Ferris S. Thompson, Deceased, Respondents. United States Trust Company of New York et al., as Executors of Comtesse de Beaurepaire, Appellants; Trustees of Princeton University et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1026.]
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

#### § 200.30-12 [Reserved]
### §1764. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–105, §22, Oct. 7, 1975, 89 Stat. 528

Section, act June 4, 1946, ch. 281, §15, as added June 30, 1971, Pub. L. 92–32, §1, 85 Stat. 85, authorized use, during fiscal 1971, of not to exceed $35,000,000 from section 612c of Title 7, and not to exceed $100,000,000 during fiscal 1972 to carry out provisions of this chapter, with unexpended funds to remain available in accordance with last sentence of section 1752 of this title.