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



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, William A. Houlihan, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Metris Companies Inc.
(the Registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant 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 Registrant, 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 Registrant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 Registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants
most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely
to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting.  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of
directors:  (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 Registrant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 Registrants internal control
over financial reporting. Date: November 9, 2004 /s/ William A. HoulihanSignatureName:
    William A. HoulihanTitle:
    Executive Vice President and Chief 
Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### § 213.267 Effect of insurance endorsement.

From the date of initial endorsement, the Commissioner and the mortgagee or lender shall be bound by the provisions of this subpart to the same extent as if they had executed a contract including the provisions of this subpart and the applicable sections of the Act.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMAN SALOMON MYVETTREGINA AGUIRE MYVETT,

Plaintiffs,

    v.

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP; PARKERPACIFIC INVESTMENTS, L.P.,

Defendants.                                                                      /

No. C 08-5797 MMC

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINSTDEFENDANT PARKER PACIFICINVESTMENTS, L.P.

By order filed December 31, 2009, the Court directed plaintiffs to serve Defendant

Pacific Parker Investments, L.P. (“Parker Pacific”) no later than January 22, 2010 and to

file, no later than January 27, 2010, proof of such service.  Plaintiffs have not filed proof of

such service within the time specified therein.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims against Parker Pacific are hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 3, 2010                                                   MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05797-MMC   Document 81   Filed 03/03/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-10T19:28:31-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
August 6, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-00329-MMC Document 115 Filed 08/06/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 203.664 Processing defaulted mortgages on property located on Indian land.

Before a mortgagee requests that the Secretary accept assignment under § 203.350(b) of a mortgage insured pursuant to section 248 of the National Housing Act (§ 203.43h), the mortgagee must submit documents showing that the requirements of § 203.604 have been met.

[61 FR 35020, July 3, 1996]
Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend the Mediation Deadline - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ALFRED G. JOHNSON, SBN 38790

LAW OFFICES OF LYLE C. CAVIN, JR.

201 Fourth Street, Suite 102

Oakland, California 94607

(510) 444-2501

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Joe Walker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE WALKER,

Plaintiff,

Case No. C 09-01034 EDL

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER TO EXTEND THE

MEDIATION DEADLINE

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants. /

Plaintiff, JOE WALKER, and Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

hereby stipulate to extend the deadline to mediate this matter. Currently the mediation

deadline is April 30, 2010. The parties have agreed to move the mediation deadline 60

days back, to June 29, 2010.

Good cause for this extension exists because there are two key depositions, the

deposition of the Chief Mate and the Chief Electrician that have been noticed but have

not yet been completed. Also, there is an upcoming vessel inspection that will not be

able to be completed prior to the current mediation deadline on April 30, 2010.

TEH

Case 3:09-cv-01034-TEH Document 26 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 3
Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend the Mediation Deadline - 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Both parties are confident that this extension will be all that is required in order

to prepare for a meaningful mediation. The parties do not anticipate a need to change

any previously set deadlines.

Dated: April 7, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF LYLE C. CAVIN, JR.

By: /s/ 

Alfred G. Johnson

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Joe Walker

Dated: April 7, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

By: /s/ 

R. Scott Blaze

Attorney for Defendant

United States of America

Case 3:09-cv-01034-TEH Document 26 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 3
Stipulation and Proposed Order to Extend the Mediation Deadline - 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER OF THE COURT

GOOD CAUSE having been shown, the mediation deadline in this case is to be

extended 60-days. The new deadline to mediate this mater is now June 29, 2010.

Dated: _________________ _______________________________

Hon. Thelton E. Henderson

FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

04/08/10

Case 3:09-cv-01034-TEH Document 26 Filed 04/08/10 Page 3 of 3
#### Ignatius A. Monforte, Appellant, v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Company et al., Respondents.

Appellant’s letter, dated June *5,*1962, addressed to the Presiding Justice, will be treated as a motion by appellant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Motion denied. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### § 203.468 [Reserved]
§ 96.86 Length of debarment period and reapplication after temporary debarment. ( a ) In the case of a temporary debarment order, the order will take effect on the date specified in the order and will specify a date, not earlier than three years later, on or after which the agency or person may petition the Secretary for withdrawal of the temporary debarment. If the Secretary withdraws the temporary debarment, the agency or person may then reapply for accreditation or approval to the same accrediting entity that handled its prior application for accreditation or approval. If that accrediting entity is no longer providing accreditation or approval services, the agency or person may apply to any accrediting entity with jurisdiction over its application.
( b ) In the case of a permanent debarment order, the order will take effect on the date specified in the order. The agency or person will not be permitted to apply again to an accrediting entity for accreditation or approval, or to the Secretary for termination of the debarment.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Secretary from withdrawing a debarment if the Secretary concludes that the action was based on a mistake of fact or was otherwise in error. Upon taking such action, the Secretary will take appropriate steps to notify the accrediting entity and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27872]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--International Electrotechnical Commission 
Technical Committee 37

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 2004, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), International 
Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee 37 (``IET TC 37''), by 
its Secretariat, National Electrical Manufacturers Association 
(``NEMA''), has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
name and principal place of business of the standards development 
organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: International 
Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee 37, Rosslyn, VA. The 
nature and scope of IEC TC 37's standards development activities are: 
to develop and maintain standards related to surge arresters. IEC TC 37 
currently maintains a series of IEC 60099 standards dealing with 
general requirements for surge arresters. The standards developed by 
IEC TC 37 are published by NEMA.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-27872 Filed 12-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### BENJAMIN et al. v. AMERICAN FIRE INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA et al. SAME v. INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA et al. SAME v. GREENWICH INS. CO. OF CITY OF NEW YORK et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 11, 1903.)

Actions by Hannah F. Benjamin and Hannah Amelia Terry against the American Fire Insurance Company of Philadelphia and John M. Diven, against the Insurance Company of North America and John M. Diven, and against the Greenwich Insurance Company of the City of New York and John M. Diven.

No opinion. Judgments affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion in Benjamin v. Palatine Ins. Co., Limited (decided herewith) 80 N. Y. Supp. 256.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2881

To suspend temporarily the duty on p-Amino Benzamide. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2005

Mr. CHABOT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on p-Amino Benzamide.

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

3 SECTION 1. P-AMINO BENZAMIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.11.05 Benzamide, 4 Amino (CAS 

No. 2835–68–9) (provided 

for in subheading 

2924.29.75) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2

•HR 2881 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
SAC-CC SAC SHP PAC PHP 10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1

10 367 $ 449$ 572$ $ 593 511 $ 11 1.12 1.16 1.05 111 412 $ 519$ 602$ $ 632 555 $ 12 1.27 1.25 1.13 112 468 $ 563$ 648$ $ 668 595 $ 13 1.44 1.42 1.30 113 529 $ 637$ 743$ $ 820 730 $ 14 1.60 1.82 1.79 114 588 $ 816 $ 1,023 $ $ 1,029 889 $ 15 1.99 1.94 1

15 $ 1,107 893 $ $ 1,100 955 $ 

10 1.00 1.00 111 1.12 1.05 112 1.27 1.13 113 1.44 1.30 114 1.71 1.79 115 1.99 1.94 1

Reverse Engineering Relati

Estimates for Baseline 3-to

Equipment Under New Eff

Standards v3.0

1.001.201.401.601.802.002.20

10 11 12 13 1

Efficiency Level (SEER)

Relative Cost

Reverse Engineering Cost Estimates for Baseline 3-

ton Unitary Equipment Under New Efficiency 

Standards v3.0

$-

$200$400$600$800

$1,000$1,200

10 11 12 13 14 15

Efficiency Level (SEER)

Production Cost ($ per 

unit)

SAC-CCSACSHPPACPHP
#### In the Matter of Robert J. Hamm et al., Respondents, v Alphonse E. D’Ambrose, as Director of the New York City Department of Personnel and Chairman of the New York City Civil Service Commission, et al., Appellants.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 10, 1976, directing trial of issues of fact in article 78 proceeding, is unanimously reversed, on the law, so far as appealed from, and the petition dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. The respondent New York City Civil Service Commission acted within its powers in appointing the Test Validation Board. *(Matter of Adolph v Department of Personnel, Civ. Serv. Comm, of City of N. Y.,*71 Misc 2d 68, affd 41 AD2d 713, affd on opn of Trial Term 33 NY2d 993.) There is no showing that the two police officer members designated by the Sergeants’ Benevolent Association were in any way under the control of influence of the police commissioner in the performance of their functions as members of the Test Validation Board, and there was thus no violation of section 4.4.6 of the City Civil Service Regulations. The Test Validation Board was conscious of and applied the *541ruling in *Matter of Acosta v Lang*(13 NY2d 1079, 1081) that "Where there are two equally acceptable answers to a question, the selection of one as the correct answer must be deemed to be the result of an arbitrary decision”. It is plain that the commission and the Test Validation Board acted with the utmost thoroughness and care in their efforts to be fair in the rating of the examination. The hearing before the Test Validation Board was not a quasi-judicial hearing and was, indeed, not required to be held at all. There was no requirement that every person who took the examination should have been given direct personal notice of the hearing. The notification by the police teletype system with the requirement that the excerpts be posted on the bulletin board of all commands would seem to be a very practical and efficient method of notifying the interested candidates in this promotion examination. There is no factual showing of any reason to believe that the actions of the commission, on the recommendation of the Test Validation Board, with respect to the disputed questions and answers, were arbitrary or capricious. In that connection, we have examined the disputed questions and answers. We do not think that every dispute as to whether answers are equally correct, or as to whether particular questions should be deleted, requires a trial by the court. The task of determining such disputes is one for the commission and not the courts unless there is a showing that the commission has acted arbitrarily or capriciously. A trial will tell us nothing that we do not already know that would bear on the exercise of the court’s limited power of review. There is no triable issue of fact. (See CPLR 7804, subd [h]; 409, subd [b].) Concur — Birns, J. P., Silverman, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT


TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.









November
23, 2009








/s/ Richard R.
Royall


Richard
R. Royall


Chief
Financial Officer
#### Herbert Burstein, Respondent, v Bernard H. Greene, Individually and as a Member of the Firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, et al., Appellants.

In a libel action, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 13, 1977, which denied their motion to transfer the action from Nassau County to New York County. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted to the extent that the action is transferred from Nassau County to Kings County. In view of the fact that plaintiff is the spouse of a resident Supreme Court Justice of Nassau County, we believe that the protection of the court’s reputation from the slightest suspicion as to the fairness of the trial requires a change of venue of this libel action from Nassau County to Kings County. While we have no doubt that each of the Justices of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, would afford the defendants a fair and impartial trial, we recognize that under the circumstances it might appear that defendants would suffer a disadvantage if they proceeded to trial in a court in which the plaintiff’s wife has so often presided (cf. *Arkwright v Steinbugler,*283 App Div 397, 399; *Seifert v McLaughlin,*15 AD2d 555). Although this case involves a Judge’s spouse whereas in *Arkwright (supra)*the plaintiff himself was a Judge, nevertheless the underlying principle enunciated in *Arkwright,*to wit, that a court should avoid even a possible appearance of bias or favoritism, is applicable in this instance. Accordingly, we conclude that the ends of justice will be better served without undue inconvenience to the parties and their witnesses if the trial were held in Kings County rather than in Nassau County, where the action was instituted. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 110.20 Availability of posters.

All persons subject to this part may obtain fair housing posters from the Department's regional and area offices. A facsimile may be used if the poster and the lettering are equivalent in size and legibility to the poster available from the Department.

[37 FR 3429, Feb. 16, 1972]
###### Editorial Note on Part 17

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 87 FR 8196, Feb. 14, 2022.

#### § 17.107 Procedures for salary offset: imposition of interest.

Interest will be charged in accordance with the Federal Claims Collection Standards as provided in 31 CFR 901.9.
### §7279a. Future-years energy program annual submission and budgeting

#### (a) Submission to Congress

The Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress each year, at the time that the President's budget is submitted to Congress that year under section 1105(a) of title 31, a future-years energy program reflecting the estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations included in that budget. Any such future-years energy program shall cover the fiscal year with respect to which the budget is submitted and at least the four succeeding fiscal years. A future-years energy program shall be included in the fiscal year 2014 budget submission to Congress and every fiscal year thereafter.

#### (b) Elements

Each future-years energy program shall contain the following:

(1) The estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations necessary to support programs, projects, and activities of the Secretary of Energy during the 5-fiscal year period covered by the program, expressed in a level of detail comparable to that contained in the budget submitted by the President to Congress under section 1105 of title 31.

(2) The estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations shaped by high-level, prioritized program and budgetary guidance that is consistent with the administration's policies and out year budget projections and reviewed by the Department of Energy's (DOE) senior leadership to ensure that the future-years energy program is consistent and congruent with previously established program and budgetary guidance.

(3) A description of the anticipated workload requirements for each DOE national laboratory during the 5-fiscal year period.

#### (c) Consistency in budgeting

(1) The Secretary of Energy shall ensure that amounts described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) for any fiscal year are consistent with amounts described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) for that fiscal year.

(2) Amounts referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(A) The amounts specified in program and budget information submitted to Congress by the Secretary of Energy in support of expenditure estimates and proposed appropriations in the budget submitted to Congress by the President under section 1105(a) of title 31 for any fiscal year, as shown in the future-years energy program submitted pursuant to subsection (a).

(B) The total amounts of estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations necessary to support the programs, projects, and activities of the administration included pursuant to paragraph (5) of section 1105(a) of such title in the budget submitted to Congress under that section for any fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 112–74, div. B, title III, §304, Dec. 23, 2011, 125 Stat. 876.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012, and also as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.