alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 
      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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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 fiscal 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
  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;
andb)
    
    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.
 December 6, 2010
    /s/ J. Per BrodinJ. Per BrodinChief Financial Officer 35
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0232 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. SEAN MCKELVEY CALAHAN,

Defendant and Appellant. 

# ED MAY 1 8 2021
Bovven Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court ';tata elf Montana ORDER

Counsel for Appellant Sean McKelvey Calahan moves this Court to withdraw representation as attorney ofrecord because the scope ofrepresentation did not include an appeal. Counsel points out that Calahan has been incarcerated for more than a year,lacks the resources for such an endeavor.and indigent. Counsel requests appointment ofcounsel from the Appellate Defender Division. Upon review ofthe motion and good cause,therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED, and that appointment of appellate counsel is GRANTED. The Appellate Defender Division shall have thirty days from the date ofthis Order within which to file either a Notice ofAppearance or a Motion to Rescind this Order appointing counsel. In the event the Appellant qualifies for appointed counsel,the Appellate Defender Division shall immediately order transcripts. The Clerk ofthe Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to the Appellate Defender Division, to counsel of record, and to Sean McKelvey
- Calahan personally. L11,

— DATED this 

# 1 e day ofMay,2021. For the Court,

By ChiefJustice 05/18/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0232
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William T. Barbour, Appellant, v. Walter H. Wilkins, as Warden of Attica Prison, Respondent.

Motion to prosecute appeal on original papers, and for other relief denied.
15.603 General. ( a ) Unsolicited proposals allow unique and innovative ideas or approaches that have been developed outside the Government to be made available to Government agencies for use in accomplishment of their missions. Unsolicited proposals are offered with the intent that the Government will enter into a contract with the offeror for research and development or other efforts supporting the Government mission, and often represent a substantial investment of time and effort by the offeror.
( b ) Advertising material, commercial product or commercial service offers, or contributions, as defined in 15.601, or routine correspondence on technical issues, are not unsolicited proposals.
( c ) A valid unsolicited proposal must— ( 1 ) Be innovative and unique;
( 2 ) Be independently originated and developed by the offeror;
( 3 ) Be prepared without Government supervision, endorsement, direction, or direct Government involvement;
( 4 ) Include sufficient detail to permit a determination that Government support could be worthwhile and the proposed work could benefit the agency's research and development or other mission responsibilities;
( 5 ) Not be an advance proposal for a known agency requirement that can be acquired by competitive methods; and
( 6 ) Not address a previously published agency requirement.
( d ) Unsolicited proposals in response to a publicized general statement of agency needs are considered to be independently originated.
( e ) Agencies must evaluate unsolicited proposals for energy savings performance contracts in accordance with the procedures in 10 CFR 436.33(b).
[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 66 FR 65352, Dec. 18, 2002; 69 FR 17769, Apr. 5, 2004, 86 FR 61027, Nov. 4, 2021; 89 FR 30238, Apr. 22, 2024]
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Laws & Guidance
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Balance Sheet as of March 31, 1999 and the Statement Of Income 
for the year ended March 31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by 
refenence to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         328,363 
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,908,097<F1>
<PP&E>                                      39,000,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,133,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,774,554    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,452,216
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,322,338    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,774,554
<SALES>                                      1,504,687<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,551,845<F3>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               584,471<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                967,374
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            967,374
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   967,374
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   293.14<F5>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   293.14<F5>
<FN>
<F1>Includes prepaid rent
<F2>Rental income
<F3>Includes dividend income
<F4>Leasehold rent, supervisory fees, legal fees and amortization of
    leasehold
<F5>Earnings per $10,000 participation unit, based on 3,300 participation 
    units outstanding during the year
                                -36-<PAGE>
  


</TABLE>
#### John Bennett, Jr., an Infant, by John Bennett, Sr., His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant.

In an action brought by plaintiff, an infant, to recover damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of his being struck by a stick that forcibly slipped out of the batter’s hands during a stickball game in a public schoolyard, after school hours, while plaintiff was in the yard watching the game, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 4, 1959, after trial, upon a jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff for $35,000. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and complaint dismissed. Ho questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, there was no warrant for submitting this case to the jury. In after-sehool-hour playgrounds, no duty may be imposed upon defendant to provide supervision over the playground users. Hor may defendant be cast in damages for injuries caused by the act of an intervening third party such as the batter in the stickball game here; the risks of the game were patent and were assumed by the plaintiff as a spectator *(Lutzker*v. *Board of Educ. of City of N. Y.,*262 App. Div. 881, affd. 287 N. Y. 822; *Kantor*v. *City of New York,*251 App. Div. 454, 459-456; *Diele*v. *Board of Educ. of City of N .Y.,*1 A D 2d 676; *Glatstein*v. *City of New York,*6 A D 2d 824, motion for leave to appeal denied 5 N Y 2d 708). Under the circumstances, it was error to have instructed the jury, over exception and over request for a contrary charge, that it was the duty of the defendant to reasonably supervise the schoolyard if it be found that it permitted the use of the yard as a play site. This attempt by the defendant to help children to escape the perils of playing in the street did not burden it with the duty of supervision over the games played or *652over the equipment which the participants themselves provided *(Kantor*v. *City of New York, supra).*Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23

Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Andrew Corporation of our report dated October 18,
2002, included in the 2002 Annual Report to Shareholders of Andrew Corporation.

Our
audit also included the financial statement schedule of Andrew Corporation listed in Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We
also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 33-58750 on Form S-8 dated February 24, 1993;
Registration Statement No. 33-58752 on Form S-8 dated February 24, 1993; Registration Statement No. 33-52487 on
Form S-8 dated March 2, 1994 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 33-52487 on Form S-8
dated March 3, 1994; Registration Statement No. 333-12743 on Form S-4 dated September 26, 1996; Registration Statement
No. 333-52575 on Form S-8 dated May 13, 1998; Registration Statement No. 333-57273 on Form S-8 dated June19, 1998;
Registration Statement No. 333-52238 on Form S-8 dated December 20, 2000; Registration Statement No. 333-74470 on
Form S-8 dated December 4, 2001; and Registration Statement No. 333-98333 on Form S-3 dated August 19, 2002 of our report dated
October 18, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Andrew Corporation.

|/s/ Ernst & Young LLPChicago, Illinois
December 20, 2002 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

About EDCONTACTS
|Exhibit 21(b)                      |  |                         
|---------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|PPL Electric Utilities Corporation |  |                         
|Subsidiaries of the Registrant     |  |                         
|As of December 31, 2004            |  |                         
|                                   |  |                         
|                                   |  |                         
|Company Name                       |  | State or Jurisdiction of
|Business Conducted under Same Name |  | Incorporation/Formation 
|                                   |  |                         
|PPL Transition Bond Company, LLC   |  | Delaware                
|                                   |  |                         
|PPL Receivables Corporation        |  | Delaware
# TABLE 301
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

TeachersIMPROVE STUDENT PERFORMANCE
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Carlos Lorenzo Gallegos, * From the 238th District Court

of Midland County

Trial Court No. CR44618

.

Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00325

- CR * January 11, 2018

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey , J.

(Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J. , and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment s below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment s of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
#### In the Matter of Gray Line Motor Tours, Inc. et al. v. Transport Workers Union Local 100.

Motion to dispense with printing granted insofar as to permit the appeal to be heard upon the original record, without printing the same, and upon typewritten or mimeographed appellants’ points, on condition that the appellants serve one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed appellants’ points upon the attorney for respondents and file 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies of appellants’ points, together with the original record, with this court on or before 12 noon on June 15, 1962, with notice of argument for June 21,1962, said appeal to he argued or submitted when reached. Respondents’ points are to be served and filed on or before 12 noon on June 20, 1962. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Joseph Frey.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted since under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no appeal to this court lies. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM SECURITY CAPITAL CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,133
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,279
<ALLOWANCES>                                       351
<INVENTORY>                                      5,339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,754
<PP&E>                                           1,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                     310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,598
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,501
<SALES>                                         30,018
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,018
<CGS>                                           14,486
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,714
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (435)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,149
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,149
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Argued and submitted January 29,

convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing February 25, 2004

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*ESTEBAN LUZ MORALES, *Appellant.*

01C-53774; A119510

84 P3d 1127

Louis R. Miles, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Peter A. Ozanne, Executive Director, Office of Public Defense Services.

Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Ortega, Judges.

ORTEGA, J.

*357ORTEGA, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction on two counts of attempted aggravated murder, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing a departure sentence of 230 months on one of those convictions. The trial court based its decision to impose an upward departure sentence on its findings of seven aggravating factors. Defendant challenges each of those factors. The state concedes that the trial court erred in concluding that defendant’s status as a “two-state offender” could serve as an aggravating factor under the circumstances presented here. As explained below, we find the state’s concession to be well founded, and we accept it. Because that error requires resentencing, we need not reach defendant’s remaining nonconstitutional challenges to the other aggravating factors. Defendant’s constitutional argument is unpreserved, is not error apparent on the face of the record, and lacks merit under *State v. Dilts,*336 Or 158, 82 P3d 593 (2003).

The trial court found defendant to be a “two-state offender” based on the fact that defendant had a juvenile adjudication for felony drug possession in the State of Washington. In light of the fact that defendant’s criminal history is taken into account in determining his placement on the sentencing guidelines grid, and given that the trial court offered no rationale as to why the commission of offenses in different states is qualitatively different — and worse — than the commission of multiple offenses in the same state, we agree with the parties that the use of “two-state offender” as an aggravating factor was not appropriate. The trial court did not find that any of the other aggravating factors alone would justify the imposition of a departure sentence. Therefore, resentencing is required. *See generally State v.*Toledo, 175 Or App 280, 281, 38 P3d 1194 (2001).

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
#### 1452.204-70 Release of Claims.

As prescribed in 1404.804-70, insert the following clause:

# Release of Claims—Department of the Interior (JUL 1996)

After completion of work and prior to final payment, the Contractor shall furnish the Contracting Officer with a release of claims against the United States relating to this contract. The Release of Claims form (DI-137) shall be used for this purpose. The form provides for exception of specified claims from operation of the release.

(End of clause)
#### 1352.271-89 Temporary services.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1371.120, insert the following clause:

# Temporary Services (APR 2010)

(a) Temporary services are services incidental to the performance of work which are required in the schedule or specifications to be provided by the contractor. Temporary services may include the furnishing of water, electricity, telephone service, toilet facilities, garbage removal, office space, parking places or similar facilities.

(b) If performance time is extended due to Government-caused delay, the contractor may request an equitable adjustment for providing temporary services at the rate stated in the Schedule.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
#### 16.206-4 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall, when contracting by negotiation, insert the clause at 52.216-6, Price Redetermination—Retroactive, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price contract is contemplated and the conditions in 16.206-2 and 16.206-3(a) through (d) apply.
§ 631.3 Supervision. The following will develop and have staff supervision over AFDCB and off-installation enforcement policies. ( a ) The Office of the Provost Marshal General (OPMG), Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA). This official serves as the proponent for this part, and has primary responsibility for its content.
( b ) U.S. Air Force Director of Security Forces and Force Protection, Department of the Air Force.
( c ) Director, Naval Criminal Investigative Service.
( d ) Commandant of the Marine Corps.
( e ) Commandant of the Coast Guard.
( f ) Installation commanders are authorized to convene joint service boards within their Army Regulation (AR) 5-9 area of responsibility.
#### Belsid Holding Corp., Appellant, v. Frank C. Dahm et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. Francis J. McCaffrey, Respondent.

In an action *500
      *to*foreclose a mortgage on real property, the plaintiff appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 25, 1960 and August 5, 1960, respectively. The first order, dated July 25, 1960, grants the motion of defendant Frank C. Dahm and permits him to pay: (1) the entire unpaid balance of principal and interest owing on the mortgage, (2) the costs of the action, (3) the amount advanced for insurance premiums, and (4) the receiver’s fee and expenses; and directs, *inter alia,*that upon the making of such payments the complaint be dismissed. The second order, dated August 5, 1960, grants plaintiff’s motion for reargument, but adheres to the original determination. Order of August 5, 1960, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appeal from order of July 25, 1960, dismissed, without costs. This order was superseded by the later order of August 5, 1960. The owner of the equity of redemption has a right to redeem at any time before an actual sale under a judgment of foreclosure *(Nutt*v. *Cuming,*155 N. Y. 309; 15 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 322, § 193, and cases there cited). The amount permitted to be paid here was not merely the total of the installments of principal and interest as to which there had been a default in payment, but the entire unpaid balance of the bond and mortgage. Such balance had become due by reason of the plaintiff mortgagee’s exercise of his option under the mortgage to declare the entire balance due because of the defaults on the payment of the installments. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.