alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Christopher W. Vieth, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June
30, 2003 of Dow Jones & Company, Inc.;

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(s) 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 (the registrant's fourth quarter 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(s) 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 other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date:

/s/ Christopher W. Vieth
------------------------
Christopher W. Vieth
Chief Financial Officer
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). E F/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J E S US E S P I NO Z A, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. S T UA R T J . R YA N, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 07- 55120 D . C. N o . CV - 0 5 - 0 2 7 1 9 - G PS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia G e or ge P . S c hi a ve l l i , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 16, 2010 ** B e f o r e : S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , a n dR A W L I N S O N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . C alifo rn ia state p riso n erJe su s E sp in o za ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e have j ur i s di c t i on 

# FI LED APR01 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSE F/ Res ea r ch 07- 55120 2 p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f irm . E sp i n o za co n t en d s th atth e tri al co u rtv i o l at edh i s d u e p ro cess ri g h t s b y m i si nstruct i ng the j ury r egar di ng the el em ent s of vol un t ary m ansl augh t er . W e a gree w i th the di s tr i c tc ourttha tthe i ns truc t i ona l e rr ordi d notha ve a“ s ubs t a nt i a l a nd i nj uri ou s e ff

ec tor i nfl uence i n d et erm i ni ng the j ury’ s ver di ct . ” See B re cht v. A br aham s on , 5 0 7 U .S . 6 1 9 , 6 2 3 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . AF F I RME D.
### §101119. Liability of United States

The United States shall not be liable for any debts, defaults, acts, or omissions of the National Park Foundation.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3122.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 101119 | 16 U.S.C. 19m. | Pub. L. 90–209, §9, Dec. 18, 1967, 81 Stat. 657. |

Section
Map 2-12: Alternative D

Right-of-Way Exclusion and Avoidance Areas

Related to Greater Sage Grouse Habitat

0 20 40 60 80

Kilometers

0 20 40 60 80

Miles

1

LUP Amendments Planning Area

Boundary

BLM Field Office Boundaries

Forest Service Planning Unit

Boundaries

Sage Grouse Priority Habitat

Management Area (Core)

Sage Grouse Priority Habitat

Management Area (Connectivity)

Right-of-Way Exclusion Areas

BLM and USFS Surface

Management

County Boundaries

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Final Environmental Impact Statement - May 2015

W Y O M I N G

M T

I D

M A P A R E A

Crook

Weston

Sundance

Rock Springs

Field Office

§ ̈¦80

U T

C O

N E

S D

Newcastle

Lusk

Douglas

Casper

Cheyenne

Wheatland Torrington

Laramie

Rawlins

Rock Springs

Green River

Evanston

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Rawlins Field Offi ce

Casper Field Offi ce

Newcastle

Field Office

Pinedale

Field Office

Kemmerer

Field Office

Bridger -

Teton

N.F.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Thunder

Basin

N.G.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine

Bow

N.F.

Medicine Bow

N.F.

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

Platte

G

o

s

h

e

n

Alb

a

n

y

L

a

r

a

mie

C

o

n

v

e

r

s

e

Nio

b

r

a

r

a

Nat rona

Carbon

S

w

e

etw

ate

r

C

a

r

b

o

n

Sublette

Lincoln

T

eto

n

Fr

e

m

o

nt

Wyoming Sage Grouse Land Use Plan Amendments

Note: Identified restrictions displayed on this map

are in addition to existing restrictions already

approved through previous planning efforts.
FREMONT

CARBON

SWEETWATER

ALBANY

NATRONA

SUBLETTE

LINCOLN

CONVERSE

CROOK

UINTA

LARAMIE

WESTON

PLATTE

GOSHEN

NIOBRARA

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

Bridger-Teton

Thunder 

Basin

Medicine-Bow

Medicine-Bow

Rawlins

Casper

Rock Springs

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Yellowstone Newcastle

National Park

Lusk

Yoder

Hanna

Baggs

Afton

Hulett

Glendo

Casper

Douglas

Bairoil

Rawlins

Laramie

Superior

Sundance

Saratoga

La Barge Guernsey

Pinedale

Kemmerer

Evanston

Cheyenne

Wheatland

Wamsutter

Cokeville

Chugwater

Big Piney

Newcastle

Torrington

Rock River

Pine Bluffs

Green River

Medicine Bow

Fort Laramie

Elk Mountain

Rock Springs

Grand Encampment

0 25 50 100

Miles

0 25 50 100

Kilometers

Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Land Use Plan Amendments

o

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF 

THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

LUP Amendments Planning Area

BLM Field Office Boundary

Forest Service Planning Unit Boundary

ROW Exclusion Area

ROW Avoidance Area

BLM and USFS Surface Lands

Sage-grouse Priority/Core Habitat Areas

Sage-grouse Connectivity Habitat Areas

Counties

Water

Interstate

State / US Hwy

Cities

Map 2-9: Alternative A

ROW Exclusion 

and Avoidance Areas
§ 1662.26 Records available for public inspection. Under the FOIA, SSS is required to make available for public inspection in an electronic format: ( a ) Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases;
( b ) The Agency's statements and interpretations of policy that have been adopted but are not published in the Federal Register;
( c ) Administrative staff manuals and instructions that affect the public; and
( d ) Copies of records, regardless of form or format, that an agency determines will likely become the subject of subsequent requests, as well as records that have been requested and released three or more times, unless said materials are published and copies are offered to sale.
### §412. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 412, comprising section 411 of the National Security Act of 1947, act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, was editorially reclassified as section 3006 of this title.
#### FOX et al., Appellants, v. PEACOCK, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 10, 1905.)

Action by Hugh C. Fox and others against G. H. Peacock. H. Wetherhorn, for appellants. R. Claughton, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### § 922.762 Criteria for designating areas as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations.

Part 762 of this chapter, *Criteria for Designating Areas Unsuitable for Surface Coal Mining Operations,* shall apply to surface coal mine operations beginning May 28, 1983.
### §300304. Cultural park

In this division, the term "cultural park" means a definable area that—

(A) is distinguished by historic property, prehistoric property, and land related to that property; and

(B) constitutes an interpretive, educational, and recreational resource for the public at large.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3188.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 300304 | 16 U.S.C. 470w(9). | Pub. L. 89–665, title III, §301(9), as added Pub. L. 96–515, title V, §501, Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3001; Pub. L. 102–575, title XL, §4019(a)(7), Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4764. |

Section
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for Northern Texas, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODNEY DEON HOLLIE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden;

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 10-55331

D.C. 2:08-cv-02950-JVS-DTB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 12, 2011

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON and D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, District

Judge.** 

FILED

OCT 31 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
1

 Because Hollie does not claim that the state court’s denial of his motion to

sever his charges was based on an erroneous factual finding, Section 2254(d)(2)

does not apply to this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) (permitting habeas relief

when the state court’s rejection of a claim was “based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding.”).

2

Petitioner Rodney Deon Hollie (“Hollie”), a California state prisoner,

appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm. 

1. Hollie is not entitled to habeas relief on his claim that the state court’s

denial of his motion for a separate jury trial on Counts 1 and 2 (“motion to sever

charges”), violated his constitutional right to due process. Under 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d)(1), a federal court may only grant a state prisoner habeas relief if the state

court’s denial of the prisoner’s claim contravenes “clearly established Federal law,

as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. §

2254(d)(1). The Supreme Court has never held that a trial court’s failure to

provide separate trials on different charges implicates a defendant’s right to due

process. See Collins v. Runnels, 603 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting

petitioner’s argument that United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (1986), provides

“clearly established federal law” governing a state court’s denial of a motion to

sever).1
3

2. The state court’s denial of Hollie’s motion to suppress his confession was

not “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 

Hollie has not pointed to an obvious defect in the state court’s fact finding process. 

Cf. Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1005 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding state court

factual finding unreasonable where state court failed to “consider, or even

acknowledge” the testimony of a key defense witness).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 820.2 Objective.

This part implements subsection 529(a) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to adopt special performance standards for anthracite mines regulated by special environmental protection performance standards of a State as of the date of enactment of the Act.

[44 FR 15449, Mar. 13, 1979]
1

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-30654

Summary Calendar

DOLORES M. OUBRE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

 ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

March 10, 1998

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

Dolores M. Oubre filed suit against Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy) on

September 26, 1995. Oubre alleged that she was constructively discharged from

employment by Entergy in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

(ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. and LSA-R.S. 23: 972 and 51: 2231, et seq. Entergy

filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Oubre had waived her right 

to bring this action by executing a release which waived all claims relating to her

employment. Entergy further argued that Oubre ratified the release by accepting and

notreturning the consideration given to herin exchange for her execution of the release.
2

The district court granted Entergy’s motion in accordance with our decisions in

Blakeney v. Lomas Information Systems, Inc., 65 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied,

116 S.Ct. 1042 (1996), and Wamsley v. Champlin Refining & Chemicals, Inc., 11 F.3d

534 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1403 (1995). We affirmed. See Oubre v.

Entergy Operations, Inc., No. 96-30654 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 1996) (per curiam). The

Supreme Courtreversed. SeeOubre v.EntergyOperations, Inc., 118 S.Ct. 838 (1998).

 

Accordingly, the district court’s order of May 23, 1996, granting summary

judgment is REVERSED. The case is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings

consistent with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement.
|     |                                                                                                                            |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|     |                                                                                                                                                     |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |

|                       |
|-----------------------|
|                       |  |
| Date:  August 7, 2014 | /s/ Ronald A. Duncan |
|                  | Ronald A. Duncan |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer |
|                  | General Communication, Inc. |
§ 1662.14 Release of records. ( a ) *Records previously released.* If the Agency has released a record, or a part of a record, to others in the past, the Chief FOIA Officer will ordinarily release it to the requester, as well. However, the Chief FOIA Officer will not release it to a requester if a statute forbids this disclosure; an exemption applies that was not previously applicable; or if the previous release was unauthorized.
( b ) *Withholding records.* Section 552(b) of the FOIA explains the nine exemptions under which the Chief FOIA Officer may withhold records requested under the FOIA. Within §§ 1662.18 through 1662.25, the Agency describes the FOIA exemptions and explain how the Chief FOIA Officer applies them to disclosure determinations. In some cases, more than one exemption may apply to the same document. Section 552(b) of the FOIA, while providing nine exemptions from mandatory disclosure, does not itself provide any assurance of confidentiality by the Agency.
( c ) *Reading room.* If the record(s) requested are already publicly available, either in the SSS electronic reading room or elsewhere online, such as at *www.sss.gov ,* SSS will direct the requester to the publicly available record(s), unless the requester does not have access to the internet.
( d ) *Poor copy.* If the Chief FOIA Officer cannot make a legible copy of a record to be released, they do not attempt to reconstruct it. Instead, the Chief FOIA Officer will furnish the best copy possible and note its poor quality in their reply.
Employment Agreement



  
 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 September 23, 2002 
  
 Dr. David C. Collins 
 Learning Tree International, Inc. 
  
 Dear Dr. Collins: 
  
 This will confirm our agreement to extend,
until September 30, 2004, the term of your Employment Agreement dated as of October 1, 1995. All of the other terms of the Employment Agreement will remain as they have been. 
  
 Very truly yours, 
  
 Learning Tree International, Inc. 
  
 
	 
	 By
 	 	 /s/    MARY C. ADAMS
 

	  	 	 Mary C. Adams, Vice President, Administration
 

 
  
 Accepted and Agreed: 
  
 
	 
	 By
 	 	 /s/    DAVID C. COLLINS        
 

	  	 	 David C. Collins
 

 
  
 
	 
	 Dated
 	 	 September 24, 2002
§ 585.210 What are the steps in BOEM's competitive lease award process? ( a ) BOEM may publish an RFI under § 585.116.
( b ) BOEM will award leases through a competitive lease award process unless competitive interest does not exist. BOEM will publish details for each auction and lease through appropriate notices in the Federal Register. Each competitive lease award process will include the following steps: ( 1 ) *Call for information and nominations (Call).* BOEM will publish a Call in the Federal Register requesting information to determine qualifications of prospective bidders and interest in preliminarily identified OCS lease areas.
( 2 ) *Area identification.* BOEM will identify OCS areas for leasing consideration and related analysis in consultation with appropriate Federal agencies, State and local governments, federally recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations, and other interested parties.
( 3 ) *Proposed Sale Notice (PSN).* BOEM will publish a PSN, or a notice of its availability, in the Federal Register, announcing BOEM's intention to conduct an auction for prospective lease areas. The PSN will set forth provisions and information concerning the proposed auction and lease and will invite stakeholder comments.
( 4 ) *Final Sale Notice (FSN).* BOEM will publish an FSN, or a notice of its availability, in the Federal Register setting forth final information concerning the auction and lease.
( 5 ) *Auction.* BOEM will hold an auction under the regulations in this part and the FSN.
( 6 ) *Lease award.* BOEM will award leases subsequent to the completion of the aforementioned steps under the regulations in this part and the FSN.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jack C. Bridges, Executive Vice-President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and,
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Jack C. BridgesJack C. BridgesExecutive Vice-PresidentNovember 8, 2004Date




-8-
Nga Susana fayidadana okodoka dora nagana 

itidiyena COVID-19 demu kobininiasi kakana 

kogoŠama dogogoda tabile 9

Ulye yana emete kosana goma kee fakelayena dogogomunasi kemini. 

COVID-19 bada alemate mininano mininameno ina kakana kogoŠama 

dogogodada tabile naye aridiyabu afoni kaka.

OSHA 4056-07 2020 — 9 Steps to Reducing Worker Exposure to COVID-19 in Meat, Poultry, and Pork Processing and Packaging Facilities (Kunama)

Bada kotika kotikeyaya 

iteyanikimu misameula.

➊

Uleya dogogomunasina 

vayiresowa mokolanasina daridada 

data nafoni keka.

➐

Hakeda okita satala 

sana waganikimu 

adagata kiŠayana 

bulukamu kobucha ewi.

➌ Sana wagala agaseyala 

gerida koši nasi data 

kedero.

➍

➎ Sana datena afiše fakelena

waganikimu wagata mifegedame.

aganikimu wagata

mifigedama date okišiya

lušodiya kobininasi kemini.

Inema dayišada tagama 

awu afiyita kokayila 

koneya anitateyasi awu 

OSHA dumanidomu.

➑

➏ Koneya mokolanala biyate 

sabunate nafoni keka.

➋ Asana kodeyete

minide fade 6geridala

lakadamu kesana.

1-800-321-OSHA (6742)

TTY 1-877-889-5627

www.osha.gov

Amerika dayišadana 

afiyitana sana magada 

manoda sanañana

Bayimuya, sanata gamalana 

sanakimu midemalana kaa arita 

nafoni kikama awu agusuma 

makinala agume.

➒ Uya uya kokoso goma afiyita 

ossode mayidamu kekutule. 

Kogošama abereda sasi, 

www.osha.gov/coronavirus la awu

call 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) keniti.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130088 & (25) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130088 

 COA: 261954 

Macomb CC: 92-001186-FC 

GREGORY RICHARD MOX, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED. 

KELLY, J., not participating. 

s0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
#### § 937.828 Special performance standards—in situ processing.

Part 828 of this chapter, *Special Permanent Program Performance Standards—In Situ Processing,* shall apply to any person who conducts in situ processing activities.