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

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

                          SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF
                          PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER

     I, Andrew Perz, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of AMERICAN TECHNICAL
     CERAMICS CORP.;

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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The Company'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 Company 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
         Company, 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 Company'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 Company's internal control
         over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent
         fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
         materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial
         reporting; and

5.   The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
     most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
     Company's auditors and the audit committee of the Company'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 Company'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 Company's internal control
         over financial reporting.

Date: September 23, 2004
      ---------------------

       /S/ ANDREW R. PERZ
   ----------------------------
    Vice President, Controller
   Principal Accounting Officer
```
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DAVID BROOKS,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________

2023-1650

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-3443-17-0032-I-1.

______________________ 

Before CHEN, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Following this court’s order directing the parties to 

show cause whether to dismiss or transfer David Brooks’ 

petition for review, we transfer the case to the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

We have jurisdiction to review final decisions from the 

Merit Systems Protection Board, except in “[c]ases of discrimination subject to the provisions of [5 U.S.C. § ]7702,” 

5 U.S.C. §§ 7703(b)(2), (b)(1)(A). Those cases belong in federal district court. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); Perry v. Merit Sys. 

Case: 23-1650 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 08/21/2023
2 BROOKS v. MSPB

Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420 (2017). Because Mr. Brooks’ submissions to this court indicate that he raised a covered discrimination claim before the Board and continues to seek 

judicial review of his claim, we conclude that transfer is 

appropriate, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, and, in agreement with the 

Board’s request, ECF No. 20 at 4–5, transfer the case to the 

Southern District of Texas.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition for review and all of the filings are transmitted to the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

August 21, 2023

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

 Jarret B. Perlow

 Clerk of Court

Case: 23-1650 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 08/21/2023
EXHIBIT 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


        I, Gerard Nolan, Chief Executive Officer of Ohana Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

        (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this
             certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully
             complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
             Exchange Act

        of

        1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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


Dated: February 25, 2003

                       /s/ Gerard A. Nolan
                           -------------------------------------
                           Gerard Nolan
                           President and Chief Executive Officer



I, Catherine Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of Ohana Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

        (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this
             certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully
             complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
             Exchange Act

        of

        1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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


Dated: February 25, 2003

                       /s/ Catherine Thompson
                           ---------------------
                           Catherine Thompson
                           Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Bertha M. Billera, Appellant, v. Solomon E. Senior, as Chairman of the State of New York Workmen’s Compensation Board, et al., Respondents.

Application for an order of judicial review pursuant to section 23 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, directing the Chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the Travelers Insurance Company to review and annul the determination of said Chairman denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

MARQUISE DEON DAVIS

,
Appellant

,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee.

No. 2D 20 2 3

- 2571

August 7 , 202 4

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Pat Siracusa

, Judge.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

KELLY

, MORRIS

, and ATKINSON

, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.1101-2 Installation of deluge-type sprays.

Deluge-type water spray systems shall provide protection for the belt drive and 50 feet of fire-resistant belt or 150 feet of nonfire-resistant belt adjacent to the belt drive.
§ 702.1 Scope. This part implements the exemption contained in section 701(28) of the Act concerning the extraction of coal incidental to the extraction of other minerals where coal does not exceed 162 ⁄ 3 percent of the total tonnage of coal and other minerals removed for purposes of commercial use or sale.
### [§31109. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title V, §5101(e)(4), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1525]

Section, added Pub. L. 109–59, title IV, §4109(b)(1), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1721, related to performance and registration information system management.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 2016, subject to a transition provision, see section 5101(f), (g) of Pub. L. 114–94, set out as Effective Date of 2015 Amendment and Transition notes under section 31102 of this title.
#### W. Beach Taylor *vs.*Isaac Allen.

May 7, 1889.

Vendor and Purchaser — Statute of Frauds — Certain correspondence between the parties *held*insufficient, as a written memorandum of a contract for the sale of land, for the reason that it contained no description of the subject-matter.

Same — Answer—Admission of Oral Agreement. — A defendant may in his answer admit an oral agreement for the sale of land, and yet avail himself of its invalidity under the statute of frauds.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Murray county, *Perkins,*J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

*B. II. Whitney,*for appellant.

*H. C. Grass,*for respondent.

Mitchell, J.1

Action to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The only question is whether there was a sufficient written memorandum of the contract to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds. The only writings were in the form of correspondence between defendant and one Terry, the agent of plain-* tiff. Assuming that these letters were in other particulars a sufficient memorandum, they are manifestly insufficient, for the reason that they contain no description- of the land which was t-he subjectmiatt.er of the contract. The only description found anywhere in the correspondence is in a letter from Terry to defendant, in which it is simply called “your land,” but what land, or where situated, nowhere appears. On the trial plaintiff attempted to supply the description by asking Terry what land he referred to in his letter, and what land hie and defendant had talked about in prior conversations which led up to this correspondence. But this was clearly incompetent. Evi*434deuce of extrinsic facts and circumstances are admissible to apply or identify a description contained in the memorandum, but the attempt here was to supplement a manifestly incomplete memorandum by-proving the description by parol. Oral evidence can no more supply defects in the written memorandum than it can supply the entire want of one. The writing must be complete in itself by containing all the essential elements of the contract, including a description of its subject-matter. The plaintiff suggests that the written memorandum in this ease is aided or supplemented by certain admissions in the answer. But these will not help matters. It is now the settled law that the defendant can have the benefit of the statute, even. if he admits an oral agreement. He may admit a verbal agreement, and yet assert its invalidity. Browne, St. Frauds, § 509; 2 Reed, St. Frauds, § 527; *Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Schnell,*20 Minn. 33, (40-47.)

Order affirmed.

1

 G-ilfillan, C. J., was absent, and took no part in.this decision.
Exhibit 32.1


                              CERTIFICATION OF THE
                        JOINT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trident Rowan Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark S. Hauser, Joint Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 and 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/ Mark S. Hauser
                                       ------------------------------
                                       Mark S. Hauser
                                       Joint Chief Executive Officer
                                       May 25, 2004
## Devany,·Dennis (OST) from: .. _"'.. slevaque84@verizon.net**~;Sellt:**

### . . Monday, February 15, 2010 9:35 AM

, A'"**'To:",~'::~:,.** Devany, Dennis (OST) 

### Cc: Swansqn, Brian (OST) 

### SLLblEt9: Colgan& CapeAirdecision, Plattsburgh

., «\'\'1' , "':\'t High DearSir, I am deeply concerned bythe Clinton County legislators choice to recommend Colgan Air as the Essential AirService providerfor CUnton County. I stronglydisagreewith this decision, but believe that goingthrough normal channels - Le. my county legislators - myobjections, and the objections ofother North Country residents will be ignored. Forthe following reasons I oppose making Colgan Air the EAS providerfor Plattsburgh International Airport: 1. I question.whether Plattsburgh needs EAS service atall. Plattsburgh is under an hQur's drive from Burlington Internptionql Airport in Burlington, Vermont, which offersserviceto manydestinations, either directly orthrough connections onother airlines. 2. It is my understandingthat EAS funds .are supposed to subsidize an airport that serves the needs of the immediate community. This is notthe case in Plattsburgh, NY! Read our local newspaper and you will seethatthe airport is being touted bycounty legislators as a wonderful business venture that lures Canadians who want to fly south cheaply. I do not see any mention in U.S.C. 4173 - 4178 that EAS funding was intended to subsidizetravel byforeign nationals. 3. Cape Air has provided reliable and suitable service to Clinton County since the opening of Plattsburgh International Airport. County legislators suggested that offering flights on larger planes - hencethe decision to vote for Colgan as the new EAS provider - would entice more peopleto fly out of Plattsburgh. Cape Air has stated forthe record that they do not fill all the seats on theirflights. The county councilors were resolute in their decision to choose Colgan over Cape Air,

. however, and cited the results of a survey conducted bythe local Chamber of Commerce. The survey asked Montreal

residents if they would be more likelyto us Plattsburgh International Airport if it were serviced by larger aircraft. 4. Colgan Air was thefocus of anNTSB investigation surrounding the crash of Flight 3407that killed 50 people. A PBS Frontline documentary, aired on Feb. 9, presented evidencethat Colgan operates using a shoddy business model that**ultimatel~(led** tothefateful accident. I strongly recommend that the DOT look into local decisions being made concerning Plattsburgh International Airport.. I think it is time that someone in a position ofauthority review our situation and take a greater interest, and possibly role, in the decisions being made. . . Sincerely, Susan Levaque slevague84@verizon.net
Exhibit 12.1  Questar Pipeline Company Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges  Year Ended December 31,200720062005(dollars in millions)EarningsIncome before income taxes$  71.7$72.7$41.4Plus interest expense21.723.822.4Plus allowance for borrowed funds usedduring construction7.30.40.9Plus interest portion of rental expense1.20.80.6$101.9$97.7$65.3Fixed ChargesInterest expense$  21.7$23.8$22.4Plus allowance for borrowed funds usedduring construction7.30.40.9Plus interest portion of rental expense1.20.80.6$30.2$25.0$23.9Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges3.43.92.7  For purposes of this presentation, earnings represent income before income taxes adjusted for fixed charges. Fixed charges consist of total interest charges (expensed and capitalized), amortization of debt issuance costs and losses from reacquired debt, and the interest portion of rental expense estimated at 50%.
[COOPERS & LYBRAND LETTERHEAD]

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
BNH Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-80908, 33-10097, 33-50534, and
33-50536) of our report dated February 21, 1997, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of BNH Bancshares, Inc. as of December 31,
1996 and 1995 and for the years then ended which report is included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
----------------------------
Hartford, Connecticut
March 19, 1997


[COOPERS & LYBRAND FOOTNOTE TO LETTERHEAD]
**EXHIBIT 32****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO U.S.C. SECTION 1350**In connection with the annual report of B.H.I.T. Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”),the undersigned being the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of B.H.I.T. Inc.,do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge: 1. This Annual Report of Form 10-KSB fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and 2. The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant at the dates and forthe periods shown in such report.B.H.I.T. Inc.       By: /s/ James Benenson, Jr.             James Benenson, Jr.   Date: March 24, 2006  Chairman of the Board of Directors,      President and Chief Executive Officer           By: /s/ John V. Curci             John V. Curci   Date: March 24, 2006  Vice-President, Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer      Principal Accounting Officer    *A signed original of this written statementrequired by Rule 13a-**14(b)**of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 hasbeen provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**The certification, which accompanies the**Form 10-KSB**to which it relates, is not deemed filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Registrant under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the**Form 10-KSB**), irrespective of any generalincorporation language contained in such filing.*
#### SCHWARZ et al. v. HIRSHFIELD et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Appeal—Harmless Error.

Any error in dismissing a counterclaim is harmless, defendants still being allowed to give evidence in support of the allegations of the counterclaim as a defense, and the jury thereon having found for plaintiffs.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.

Action by Emil Schwarz and others against Morris Hirshfield and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

A. Oberstein, for appellants.

H. N. Wessel, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The only point made by the appellants as a ground for a reversal of the judgment herein is that the trial court erred in dismissing a counterclaim interposed by the defendants, which dismissal was upon the ground that there was a prior action *861pending in the City Court between the same parties, involving the same subject-matter as set forth in said counterclaim. Notwithstanding such dismissal the defendants proceeded to trial, and testimony in support of the allegations set up in the counterclaim was given as a defense to plaintiffs’ cause of action and upon the question of fact thus litigated by the parties the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. We find no reason for disturbing the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
§ 2001.16 Fundamental classification guidance review. ( a ) *Performance of fundamental classification guidance reviews.* An initial fundamental classification guidance review shall be completed by every agency with original classification authority and which authors security classification guides no later than June 27, 2012. Agencies shall conduct fundamental classification guidance reviews on a periodic basis thereafter. The frequency of the reviews shall be determined by each agency considering factors such as the number of classification guides and the volume and type of information they cover. However, a review shall be conducted at least once every five years.
( b ) *Coverage of reviews.* At a minimum, the fundamental classification guidance review shall focus on: ( 1 ) Evaluation of content. ( i ) Determining if the guidance conforms to current operational and technical circumstances; and
( ii ) Determining if the guidance meets the standards for classification under section 1.4 of the Order and an assessment of likely damage under section 1.2 of the Order; and
( 2 ) Evaluation of use: ( i ) Determining if the dissemination and availability of the guidance is appropriate, timely, and effective; and
( ii ) An examination of recent classification decisions that focuses on ensuring that classification decisions reflect the intent of the guidance as to what is classified, the appropriate level, the duration, and associated markings.
( c ) *Participation in reviews.* The agency head or senior agency official shall direct the conduct of a fundamental classification guidance review and shall ensure the appropriate agency subject matter experts participate to obtain the broadest possible range of perspectives. To the extent practicable, input should also be obtained from external subject matter experts and external users of the reviewing agency's classification guidance and decisions.
( d ) *Reports on results.* Agency heads shall provide a detailed report summarizing the results of each classification guidance review to ISOO and release an unclassified version to the public except when the existence of the guide or program is itself classified.