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

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Rafiq A. Sayed, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Colorado Wyoming Reserve Company.

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 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.

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



Date:  June 29, 2005

/s/ Rafiq A. Sayed



Rafiq A. Sayed



Chief Financial Officer
32550.3

AGENDA

Gainful Employment		

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Meetings		

September 9‐11, 2013 & October 21‐23, 2013

 Department	Overview	–	Comparison	

 Upfront	eligibility	

 Draft	text	accountability	metrics	(phase‐in	issue,	“level”	issue)	

 Other	accountability	metrics	

 Consequences	(including	student	consequences)	

 Data	correction,	challenges,	appeals	

 Reporting	requirements	

 Disclosure	requirements	

 Approval	of	new	programs	

 Other	

 Recognition	and	rewards	–	Exceptional	Performance	

 Conforming	regulatory	changes	‐	2D	session
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. August Frank Mazzella, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant: (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered March 24,1958, convicting him after a jury trial, of kidnapping, robbery in the first degree, grand larceny in the first degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to serve a term of 20 years to life in State prison; and (2) from various intermediate orders. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. No separate appeal lies from the intermediate orders, which have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, J J., concur.
#### Terese Isquith, Respondent, v. Julian R. Isquith, Appellant.

In an action to recover arrears of support and educational expenses for the daughter of the parties, pursuant to a Nevada judgment of divorce and a separation agreement between the parties, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 27, 1963 upon the court’s decision and opinion after a non jury trial, in plaintiff’s favor for $7,441, plus interest and costs. Judgment modified on the law and the facts by reducing it by the sum of $1,660, thereby reducing the principal sum from $7,441 to $5,781. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. From the record it appears that the judgment includes $3,000 for the daughter’s support, at the rate of $20 a week from November, 1959 (the last payment having been made in Oct., 1959) until August 18, 1962, when she attained the age of 21. It also appears that the daughter was married on January 14, 1961. We find that under the separation agreement and under the Nevada judgment the defendant’s obligation to support the daughter terminated upon her marriage; and we hold -that the defendant was thereafter relieved of such obligation. Hence, the judgment in this action erroneously included support for the daughter to the extent of $1,660 for the period of 83 weeks from January 14, 1961 to August 18, 1962 — the interval between the date of her marriage and the date she attained the age of 21. The judgment should be modified accordingly. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### 1327.201-2 Contract clauses.

The designee authorized to approve the insertion of clause 52.227-5, *Waiver of Indemnity,* in solicitations and contracts is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
----

----

|   | GENENTECH,      INC. |
|--------|----------------------|
|   | By:                  |  /s/      Todd Rich |
|   | Title:               |  V.      P. Development RISQ |
|   | Dated:               |  12/18/08 |
|   |                 |   |
|   | And      by:         |  /s/      William Anderson |
|   | Title:               |  S.V.P.      Sales + Marketing |
|   | Dated:               |  12/18/08 |

----
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: March 12, 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Terry Johnson, EPA Region 6

SUBJECT: March 12, 2015 Conference Call Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A conference call was held between EPA and the Arkansas Department of Environmental 

Quality and Public Service Commission on March 12, 2015 to seek clarification regarding some 

technical comments that Arkansas DEQ and PSC submitted in their joint comment letter during 

the public comment period.

Topics discussed included:

The issues identified on the “Generation Concerns” and “CO2 emissions Concerns” sheets of 

the spreadsheet attached to the comment from Arkansas, which can be categorized into four

main issues:

 Nameplate capacity discrepancies (Cecil Lynch, Fourche Creek Wastewater, Paragould 

Reciprocating, Robert Ritchie, and Two Pine Landfill Gas Recovery facilities). 

 NGCC generation calculations and methodology. 

 CO2 emissions calculations and methodology.

 Generation and emissions calculation methodologies for the following facilities: the Dell 

Power Station, Harry L Oswald , Hot Spring Generating Facility, Magnet Cove Gas 

Combustion Turbine, Pine Bluff Energy Center, Thomas Fitzhugh, and Union Power 

Partners.
ATTENDEES

Arkansas DEQ

Stuart Spencer Legal Policy Advisor

Elizabeth Sartain Environmental Program Coordinator, Air Division

Tricia Jackson Ecologist, Air Division

Arkansas PSC

Eddie Moore Policy Advisor

US EPA

Kathleen Aisling Air Program Branch, R6

Terry Johnson Air Program Branch, R6

Ashley Mohr Air Program Branch, R6

Clovis Steib Air Program Branch, R6

Kristen Bremer OAQPS, RTP

Mikail Adamantiades CAMD, HQ

Travis Johnson CAMD, HQ

Jeremy Mark CAMD, HQ

Erika Wilson CAMD, HQ
- 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

FundingCONTRACTS
| Editor's Picks                                                              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                  |
|                                                                                  | |							 1 | |  |
|                                                                                  |
| 1 - 1 of 1 Shown			Articles per page  				10 | 				25  | 				50 |
### §301. Enforcement of Convention

The Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of January 30, 1975, shall be enforced in United States courts in accordance with this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 101–369, §1, Aug. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 448.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 101–369, §3, Aug. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 450, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter] shall take effect upon the entry into force of the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration of January 30, 1975, with respect to the United States." The Convention entered into force for the United States on Oct. 27, 1990.
#### 1552.217-77 Option to extend the term of the contract fixed price.

As prescribed in 1517.208(h), insert the following clause:

# Option To Extend the Term of the Contract Fixed Price (OCT 2000)

The Government has the option to extend the term of this contract for ____ additional period(s). If more than ____ days remain in the contract period of performance, the Government, without prior written notification, may exercise this option by issuing a contract modification. To exercise this option within the last ____ days of the period of performance, the Government must provide to the Contractor written notification prior to that last ____ -day period. This preliminary notification does not commit the Government to exercising the option. Use of an option will result in the following contract modifications:

(a) The “Period of Performance” clause will be amended as follows to cover the Base and Option Periods:

| Period | Start date | End date |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |

(b) During the option period(s) the Contractor shall provide the services described below:

| Period | Attachment |
| --- | --- |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |

(c) The “Consideration and Payment” clause will be amended to reflect increased fixed prices for each option period as follows:

| Fixed price | Option period |
| --- | --- |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |

(End of clause)

[65 FR 58925, Oct. 3, 2000, as amended at 82 FR 33021, July 19, 2017]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,253
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      437
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                        262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,932
<PP&E>                                             646
<DEPRECIATION>                                     226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        116
<COMMON>                                         1,634
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,980)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,881
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,082
<CGS>                                            4,750
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,075
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    20
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,869)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,869)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,501
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.50)


</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

25 

KA 12-00685 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CRANDALE FITZPATRICK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

THE GLENNON LAW FIRM, P.C., ROCHESTER (PETER J. GLENNON OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P.

Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered March 21, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in

the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of criminal possession of a weapon in the second

degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Defendant’s contention that the

evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction is not

preserved for our review inasmuch as he failed to move for a trial

order of dismissal on that ground (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). 

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged

to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we reject

defendant’s further contention that the verdict is contrary to the

weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 

Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

Entered: February 3, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133036 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 133036 

 COA: 274107 

Oakland CC: 06-207321-FH 

PENNY LYNN GORE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 28, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0416 

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 24, 2007 

 Clerk
CONFIRMATION
      OF DEBT

     

    We,
      Daniel Courteau and Alain Lemieux, acting as the sole trustees of the Lemieux
      Trust, hereby confirmed that the Lemieux Trust is indebted to XL Generation
      AG
      of the amount of $470,695.14 as of December 31st,
      2004.

     

    The
      amount has been received directly from XL Generation Canada inc, on behalf
      of XL
      Generation AG.

     

    The
      term
      and conditions of the reimbursement of this outstanding debt are provided in
      the
      Agreement dated January 10th,
      2004.

     

    Dated
      March 15th,
      2005.

    


    
      	/s/ Alain Lemieux 	/s/ Daniel Courteau
	Alain Lemieux	Daniel
              Courteau
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael F. Tester, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 765]

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Sperrazza, J.), rendered July 8, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Upon appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and petit larceny (§ 155.25), defendant contends that County Court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the People had the burden of disproving his alibi defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, “the charge as a whole conveyed the necessary information regarding the People’s burden of proof’ *(People v Edwards,*3 AD3d 504, 505 [2004], *lv denied*2 NY3d 762 [2004]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine an alibi witness *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). By failing to make a motion specifically directed at the alleged error raised on appeal, defendant also failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d *120710, 19 [1995]). Finally, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.
Case: 1:12-cv-01422 Document #: 13-2 Filed: 06/18/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:62
#### 1903.670 Contracts between the Broadcasting Board of Governors and former employees.

To avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of preferential treatment, purchase orders, contracts, grants or cooperative agreements with former employees of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, or with firms in which former employees or their family members are known to have controlling interest, may be entered into within two years following separation from employment only with the written approval of the Board Director. A written justification shall be made a part of the file. The justification must address the issue of conflict of interest and conclude that it does not exist; or that in spite of its existence, the Board's ability to meet its mission would be seriously harmed without the award.
#### In the Matter of Greenburgh Shopping Center, Respondent, v. Town of Greenburgh et al., Appellants.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act, to review and annul a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh denying the petitioner’s application for approval of plans for a shopping center, filed pursuant to a Large Seale Development Ordinance of said town, the town and its officials appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 29, 1963, which annulled said determination and directed that a building permit for construction in accordance with such plans be issued forthwith. Order reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and petitioner’s application remanded to the Town Board for the purpose of: (a) holding hearings thereon, upon notice to petitioner; (b) making a determination *de novo*on the basis of all the proof adduced; and (3) for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. In our opinion, the learned Special Term properly found that the Town Board’s determination did not rest upon a reasonable basis. However, it does not appear of record that petitioner’s application complied in all respects with the local Large Scale Development Ordinance and with the reasonable standards of compliance thereunder which the Town Board sought to impose but which it failed to define with any particularity. Upon such hearing on notice to petitioner, the Town Board should clarify for the record what particular standards *693it requires on this specific application; and the petitioner should have the opportunity to meet or rebut such requirements. As the record now stands, it is not clear what the Town Board expected petitioner to do with respect to the alleged inadequate acceleration and deceleration lanes on Dobbs Ferry and Knollwood Roads which are State highways over which neither petitioner nor the town has any control. At the same time, it appears that the petitioner concedes that other ingress and egress lanes on its own property may require the installation of turning arrow markers and signs, and that possibly the prior approval of State authorities may be needed with respect to Dobbs Ferry and Knollwood Roads. Under the circumstances, the rights of the parties should not have been summarily concluded by a direction that a building permit issue without a hearing. Upon a full hearing and return, the issues of fact and law surviving, if any there be, can -be more appropriately determined (cf. *Matter of Nedles Land Corp.*v. *Town of Brookhaven,*20 A D 2d 648). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has deter mined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-50221 Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LIONEL LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(SA-96-CR-268-1)

_________________________________________________________________ July 9, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Lionel Lewis appeals the consecutive six-month imprisonment

sentences imposed after his guilty plea to misdemeanor offenses of

re-entering a military base after being ordered not to do so and

assault (bit ing a military policeman post-arrest; Lewis was HIV

positive at the time).

There is a dispute over the standard of review to be applied.

Because Lewis did not object to the sentence at the time it was- 2 -

imposed by a magistrate judge, the Government contends that we

should review only for plain error. See United States v. Torrez

,

40 F.3d 84, 86 (5th Cir. 1994). However, the district court

conducted a de novo review of Lewis’ challenge to his sentence.

In any event, we affirm under either standard. Because no

sente ncing guidelines were applicable to the offenses to which

Lewis pled guilty, his consecutive sentence was imposed, pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3584, after consideration of the statutory factors

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. In a similar context, we have held that

implicit consideration of those factors is sufficient, so the

magistrate judge did not commit error by failing to explicitly

articulate any of them. See United States v. Teran , 98 F.3d 831,

836 (5th Cir. 19 96). Moreover, based on, i nter alia

, the nature

and circumstances of the offense and the offender, and the need for

the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, the

imposition of consecutive sentences was warranted.

AFFIRMED