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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Kenneth Stastny, certify that: 

1. I havereviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Wise Metals Group LLC; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement 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 respectsthe 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 ensurethat 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 theeffectiveness 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 covered by this report (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

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 (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 registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 17, 2007
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsModeling Relationships Between Flight Crew Demographics and Perceptions of Interval ManagementThe Interval Management Alternative Clearances (IMAC) human-in-the-loop simulation experiment was conducted to assess interval management system performance and participants' acceptability and workload while performing three interval management clearance types. Twenty-four subject pilots and eight subject controllers flew ten high-density arrival scenarios into Denver International Airport during two weeks of data collection. This analysis examined the possible relationships between subject pilot demographics on reported perceptions of interval management in IMAC. Multiple linear regression models were created with a new software tool to predict subject pilot questionnaire item responses from demographic information. General patterns were noted across models that may indicate flight crew demographics influence perceptions of interval management.Document ID20170000680Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRemy, Benjamin*(Florida Inst. of Technology Melbourne, FL, United States)*Wilson, Sara R.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredJanuary 20, 2017Publication DateDecember 1, 2016Subject CategoryAircraft Communications And NavigationReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2016-219357L-20764NF1676L-25796Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 330693.04.10.07.09Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20170000680.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §§1328, 1329. Repealed. Sept. 26, 1950, ch. 1049, §13(1), 64 Stat. 1043

Section 1328, acts Aug. 1, 1914, ch. 223, §5, 38 Stat. 679; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, §§301, 304, 42 Stat. 23, 24, related to accounting by collecting officers.

Section 1329, acts Mar. 3, 1915, ch. 75, §3, 38 Stat. 886; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, §§301, 304, 42 Stat. 23, 24, related to examination of accounts.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Figueros Santiago, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed (see *People v Allen,*27 NY2d 108). (Appeal from judgment of Wayne County Court— assault, second degree.) Present—Moule, J. P., Simons, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Denman, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1570

MARK A. LEE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CUSHMAN, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Aiken. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CA-95-2854-1-6BC)

Submitted: October 31, 1997 Decided: November 17, 1997

Before HALL and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. George R. Hall, Timothy Eugene

Moses, HULL, TOWILL, NORMAN & BARRETT, Augusta, Georgia, For

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary

judgment in favor of Appellee in this products liability action.

Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that

summary judgment be granted in favor of Appellee, and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to

object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
3
---



##### 



ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS
    
    
    3ARTICLE 2. TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES
    
    
    3ARTICLE 3. STRATEGIC CONSULTING SERVICE FEE
    
    
    4ARTICLE 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
    
    
    4ARTICLE 5. CONFIDENTIALITY
    
    
    4ARTICLE 6. GOVERNING LAW AND EVENTS OF DEFAULT
    
    
    4ARTICLE 7. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
    
    
    4ARTICLE 8. EFFECTIVENESS
    
    
    5ARTICLE 9. NO SUBSEQUENT OBLIGATION
    
    
    5ARTICLE 10. TRANSFER LIMITATION
    
    
    5ARTICLE 11. COMPENSATION
    
    
    5ARTICLE 12. AMENDMENT
    
    
    5ARTICLE 13. COUNTERPARTS
    
    
    5ARTICLE 14. MISCELLANEOUS
    
    
    5EXHIBIT 1 CONTENT OF THE STRATEGIC CONSULTING SERVICES
    
    
    7EXHIBIT 2 STRATEGIC CONSULTING SERVICE FEE
    
    
    8




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



#####
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      11,127,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                10,920,00
<ALLOWANCES>                                   103,000
<INVENTORY>                                  7,243,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,871,000
<PP&E>                                      27,897,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,126,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,611,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,868,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  42,726,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,611,000
<SALES>                                     20,750,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,750,000
<CGS>                                       17,584,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               27,910,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                48,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             581,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,245,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,769,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
February 24, 2010 •''•''' ^'~;^;:--:'|^f^'"^''^^'0^ 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Secretary ' 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, D.C. 

20590 

Subject: Haneda Combination Services Allocation Proceeding DOT-OST-2010-0018 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

As a dedicated travel partner of American Airlines, I am writing in support of American's 

pplication to provide new service from Los Angeles International Airport to Tokyo 

International Airport at Haneda. 

a 

I recognize and applaud you and the Obama administration for your success last 

December in reaching a landmark Open Skies agreement with Japan, which opens up 

Haneda to service by U.S. airlines. 

I encourage your selection of American Airlines to provide nonstop service from Los 

Anpeles to Haneda in order to provide an essential connection between two of the 

world's most dynamic commercial centers. 

Recent events, including the successful preservation of Japan Airlines' oneworld Alliance 

membership, have underscored American's strong commitment to the trans-Pacific 

market; American is likewise cQTnra,itted to LosAngeles -r a world centet of business, • 

trade, entertainment and technology - and has provided the city with unsurpassed air 

service for many decades. 

Los Angeles, as well as the entire Southern California region will gain a significant 

economic benefit from these proposed new flights, as will American's customers and 

employees. However, we need your help to make the LAX/Haneda connection a reality. 

Therefore, I strongly yrge you to ^ayiyes to American Airlines and itS'request for.slots to 

fly f rom.Los Angeles to Haneda! v-k.-j'-v i./ ;. ^.^ '•, ; . i 

^ - ; . ; ••,•-''•. - •-7.- ' ^ i . . . •••- ^ j ii'•-:?.• : .:.. • -: ' -'..c' ; • .. . ^. , 

Sincerely, 

xx^x'
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

17) ll-K- (B)-5 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:48 AM Sheet 17 of 325 
P.2 

'

a

 = 8 a I /i=r\ <=> 

II-K-(B)-5 

PROCEDURE USED TO PROJECT THE NATIONWIDE EMISSION 

BASELINE FOR 1990. 

Letter from J. Arnold, EEA to A. Wehe, EPA:OAQPS. 

July 23, 1979. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-5
CERTIFICATE OF  AMENDMENT
                                   OF
                       CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

FIRST: That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of SLOAN ELECTRONICS, INC.
resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the
Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to
be advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of said for
considerations thereof.  The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment
is as follows:
RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation be amended
by changing the Article thereof numbered "FIRST" so that, as amended, said
Article shall be and read as follows:
"The name of the corporation is SALIENT CYBERTECH, INC."
And, by changing the Article thereof numbered "FOURTH" so that, as amended,
said Article shall be and read as follows:
"The total number of shares of stock which the corporation shall have
authority to issue is eighty million and twenty (80,000,020), of which eighty
million (80,000,000) shall be Common shares, the par value of each such share
shall be $.001; and of which twenty (20) shall be Preferred shares, each of
such shares shall be without par value.  Each share of Preferred Stock shall
be convertible to one million five hundred thousand share of Common Stock at
the will of the holder of the Preferred Stock."

SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of Its Board of Directors, a
special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and
held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation
Law of the State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares
as required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.
THIRD: That said amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions
of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.
FOURTH: That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or by
reason of said amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said SLOAN ELECTRONICS, INC. has caused this certificate
to be signed by:
Paul Sloan, its President
and Larry Provost, its Secretary,
this 25 th  day of May, A.D.1999
   /s/ Paul Sloan
  /s/ Larry Provost

STATE OF DELAWARE
SECRETARY OF STATE
DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
FILED 09:00 AM 05/28/1999
991216694 - 2648725

<PAGE>
(April 13, 1978)

#### Claire Topper, Appellant-Respondent, v Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Respondent-Appellant.

Resettled order, New York County, entered October 18, 1977, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the first and second causes of action in the complaint, denying plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the first cause but granting the cross motion on the second cause unanimously modified, on the law, by reversing so much thereof as granted plaintiffs cross motion on the second cause, by denying that branch of the cross motion, and by granting *933defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing and severing the first and second causes of action in the complaint, and, as modified, otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Defendant’s appeal from the order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 5, 1977, unanimously dismissed, without costs and without disbursements, as academic, since that order was superseded by the resettled order, entered October 18, 1977. Although plaintiff filed a notice of appeal only from the order, entered July 5, 1977, the resettled order may be reviewed on the appeal from the original order. (CPLR 5517, subd [b]; *Finger v Finger,*38 AD2d 956.) The plaintiff was terminated as an employee of the defendant on May 1, 1974. At that time, the salary continuance plan was in force and controlled the benefits the plaintiff might possibly receive upon her termination. That plan was voluntarily established and entirely funded by the defendant. To the extent here relevant, the plan provided that the defendant had sole discretion in the granting of benefits thereunder. The plaintiff’s right, if any, to recover under this voluntary plan was governed strictly by the terms set by the defendant *(Fernekes v CMP Inds.,*13 NY2d 217, 224; *Stanley v Caltex Petroleum Corp.,*63 Misc 2d 780, affd 37 AD2d 1049). The defendant, in the exercise of its discretion, chose not to award the plaintiff any benefits under the plan upon her termination. The defendant’s decision in this regard is final and may not be effectively challenged by the plaintiff under either the first or second causes of action. *(McNevin v Solvay Process Co.,*32 App Div 610, affd 167 NY 530; *Korb v Brooklyn Edison Co.,*258 App Div 799.) In passing, we also note that the nondiscretionary termination provision in the termination allowance plan expired on June 30, 1973, and thus, could not serve as a predicate for imposing liability in this proceeding. Since neither party moved for summary relief with regard to the third cause, we do not consider that matter for the first time upon this appeal. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Fein, Lane and Lynch, JJ.
§ 6.6 Records to be maintained. ( a ) *General.* Recipients shall maintain records and data as required by 24 CFR 91.105, 91.115, 570.490, and 570.506.
( b ) *Employment.* Recipients shall maintain records and data as required by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at 29 CFR part 1600.
( c ) Recipients shall make available such records and any supporting documentation upon request of the Responsible Official.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 2506-0117 and 2506-0077)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Exhibit 11.1.  Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

                                                    Three Months Ended           Nine Months Ended
                                                       September 30,               September 30,
(Dollars in thousands, except EPS data)             1998          1997           1998         1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                               <C>           <C>           <C>          <C>
Basic Earnings Per Share

   Net (loss) income                              $  3,106      $  7,884      $  6,455      $ 22,098
                                                  ========      ========      ========      ========

   Weighted average number of common
   and common equivalent shares:                15,414,210    15,372,288    15,387,923    15,354,810

   Basic earnings per share                       $   0.20      $   0.51      $   0.42      $   1.44
                                                  ========      ========      ========      ========


Diluted Earnings Per Share

   Net income                                     $  3,106      $  7,884      $  6,455      $ 22,098
                                                  ========      ========      ========      ========

   Weighted average number of common
   and common equivalent shares:
   ----------------------------------

      Average number of shares outstanding      15,414,210    15,372,288    15,387,923    15,354,810

      Net effect of dilutive stock options
      based on the treasury method &
      Fidelity additional shares                       ---        54,026        31,341        53,061

   Total average shares:                        15,414,210    15,426,314    15,419,264    15,407,871
                                                ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

   Diluted earnings per share                     $   0.20     $    0.51      $   0.42      $   1.44
                                                  ========     =========      ========      ========


</TABLE>
§ 6.13 Hearings and appeals. ( a ) When a Recipient requests an opportunity for a hearing, in accordance with § 6.12(b)(3), the General Counsel will follow the notification procedures set forth in 24 CFR 180.415. The hearing, and any petition for review, will be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in 24 CFR part 180.
( b ) After a hearing is held and a final agency decision is rendered under 24 CFR part 180, the Recipient may seek judicial review in accordance with section 111(c) of the Act.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,068
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        626
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,937
<PP&E>                                           1,359
<DEPRECIATION>                                     294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              831
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,312
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,166
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                              309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,203)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,203)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,203)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER OF TRAMMELL CROW COMPANYPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

In connection with the accompanying report onForm 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 and filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, DerekR. McClain, Chief Financial Officer of Trammell Crow Company (the “Company”),hereby certify that:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                    | /s/ DEREK R. MCCLAIN    |
|--------------------|-------------------------|
|               | Name: Derek R.  McClain |
| Date: May 10, 2005 |                    |

 

----