alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**I, Eric S. Nadeau, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Camco Financial Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of Camco as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. Camco’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a 15(f) and15d 15(f))for Camco and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to Camco, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of Camco’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluations; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in Camco’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during Camco’s fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Camco’s internal controlover financial reporting.5. Camco’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Camco’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in Camco’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: November 8, 2007 /s/ Eric S. Nadeau   Eric S. Nadeau, Chief Financial Officer
#### Andrew Johnson *vs.*Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company.

April 30, 1890.

Railway — Negligence—Cattle at Large. — The testimony in this case examined, and *held*not to have justified the verdict therein.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Goodhue county, where the action was tried before *McCluer,*J., a verdict of $35 returned for plaintiff, and a new trial refused. The action was begun in justice’s court.

*W. C. Williston,*for appellant.

*W. Colvill*and *O. M. Hall,*for respondent.

Collins, J.

Action to recover the value of a cow alleged to have been killed by the negligence of an engineer having charge of a locomotive in operation upon defendant’s road.

1. The injuries from which the animal died were inflicted at a point upon a public highway where it was crossed by defendant’s tracks, at a season of the year when cattle are prohibited, by the provisions of Gen. St. 1878, *c.*10, § 16, subd. 6, from going at large. She was not under restraint or control in any manner, was roaming at will upon the public highway, and was “at large” in violation of the statute. The trial court erred in charging the jury, as it did, in substance, that cattle, when on a highway upon their owner’s premises, are not going at large, within the purview of the statute. *Stacey*v. *Winona & St. Peter R. Co.,*42 Minn. 158, (43 N. W. Rep. 905.)

2. Under the undisputed facts in the case, the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant. The latter would only be liable for actual negligence on the part of the engineer; for his neglect and failure to exercise reasonable care, and to use due diligence to avoid injury to the cow, upon discovering that she was in the vicinity of the track, and especially after seeing that she had turned,around, and was about to cross the railway ahead of his train. There was not a particle of testimony which indicated that, from the time the engineer first saw the cow in the highway, with others, he neglected *208or failed in Ms duty in any respect. Upon the other hand, it clearly appears that he made all reasonable efforts to avoid a collision, and in due time. .

Judgment reversed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

Lorenzie Humphreys, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−04671

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras

Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, August 21, 2015:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras: Status hearing set for

8/25/2015 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice(vcf, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-04671 Document #: 73 Filed: 08/21/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:267
Order entered October 1, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00068

- CV

ROBERT D. COLEMAN, Appellant

V.

REED W. PROSPERE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11

- 02288



### O RDER

We GRANT appellant’s September 14, 2013 motion for leave to file an amended brief.

We ORDER the amended brief tendered to this Court on September 14, 2013 filed as of the date

of this order.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 3353

- 17T2

PREFERRED HOME HEALTHCARE AND NURSE SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

MAGNACARE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant

- Respondent.

____________________________________

Submitted February 14, 2019

– Decided
Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Divisio n, Middlesex County, Docket No. C

- 000 160

- 16.
Callagy Law, PC, attorneys for appellant (Trevor G. Ander s on and Christopher R. Miller, on the brief)

.

Be cker, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Joseph George Harraka , Jr. and Joseph F. Falgiani, on the brief).

PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet
, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36

- 3.

July 5, 20192 A

- 3353

- 17T2

In this contract action, plaintiff Preferred Home Healthcare and Nurse
Services, Inc., appeals from a February 16, 2018 order granting defendant

Magnacare Administrative Services, LLC summary judgment dismissal. W e

affirm.
In 2015, the parties entered into a participating provider agreement, which
expressly states plaintiff is to be reimbursed a maximum of two hours per day
for home nursing services. Plai ntiff contends that, when it entered into the
agreement, it did not understand that the two hour per day limitation specified
in the agreement applied to patients requiring more than two hours of care per
day.
On appeal, plaintiff ' s principal contentions a re the subject agreement must

be rescinded because it is an unconscionable contract of adhesion, devoid of

consideration, and the product of a material mistake. We have examined the
record and applicable legal principles, and find insufficient merit in pl aintiff ' s
contentions to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES World Trade Center Health Program 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Centers for Disease Control

 and Prevention (CDC)

National Institute for Occupational

 Safety and Health (NIOSH)

395 E Street, S.W.

Suite 9200, Patriots Plaza

Washington, D.C. 20201

PHONE: (202) 245-0625

FAX: (202) 245-0628

 October 5, 2011

Elizabeth Ward, Ph.D. 

Chair, WTC Health Program Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee 

c/o American Cancer Society October 5, 2011 

250 Williams Street, N.W., Suite 600 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

Dear Dr. Ward: 

Let me take this opportunity to thank you, and each member of the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program 

Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), for the important service you are providing to the Department of 

Health and Human Services. I am writing to request the STAC’s advice on a petition to add a health condition to the 

List of World Trade Center (WTC)-Related Health Conditions (“List”). 

In accordance with Section 3312(a)(6) of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (“Act”), nine 

members of Congress submitted a petition to consider adding cancer to the List. I request that the STAC review the 

available information on cancer outcomes associated with the exposures resulting from the September 11, 2001, 

terrorist attacks, and provide advice on whether to add cancer, or a certain type of cancer, to the List specified in the 

Zadroga Act. 

Two reports are provided with this letter that may aid members in their task: (1) “First Periodic Review of Scientific 

and Medical Evidence Related to Cancer for the World Trade Center Health Program”; and(2) “Early assessment of 

cancer outcomes in New York City firefighters after the 9/11 attacks: an observational cohort study.” If the members 

need any additional information, reports, or assistance, please contact Paul J. Middendorf, PhD, (513.841.4466; 

pkm2@cdc.gov), the STAC’s Designated Federal Official. 

To be maximally beneficial, any advice provided by the STAC as a whole, or by any individual member, about 

whether to add cancer, or a type of cancer, to the List, should include a description of the scientific and/or technical 

evidence relied on, a description of the quality of the data supporting the advice, and a description of the methods 

used in formulating the advice. Under the Act, the STAC has at least 60 days from this request and up to a maximum 

of 180 days to provide advice. Since the STAC will not be impaneled until November 8, 2011, nor officially meet until 

November 9 and 10, 2011, the STAC will have until March 2, 2012 to consider the request, review the available 

information, and provide their advice. 

Sincerely, 

John Howard, M.D. 

Administrator, World Trade Center Health Program
FORM OF CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 AND 15d-14
              UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

CERTIFICATION

I, Joseph Gutierrez, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AeroTelesis, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

      (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days of the filing date of this quarterly
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      (c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize, and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls. 6.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: August 15, 2004               By /s/ Joseph Gutierrez
                                    ---------------------------
                                    Joseph Gutierrez, President, CFO
ADMINISTRATIV E RECORD

348193

Q-3 !i1!f M: [m UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII I FILP Q

IN THE MATTER OF:

ASARCO INCORPORATED, NEWMONT MINING

CORPORATION, RES-ASARCO JOINT VENTURE , AND RESURRECTION MINING

COMPANY , RESPONDENTS .

PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE COMPREHENSIV E ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE , COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT , AS AMENDED,

42 U.S.C . § 9606

FILE PLA^

/tf,;-z .

Second Amendment to Order EPA Docket No, CERCLA-VIII-8 9 -20

SECOND AMENDMENT TO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER F OR YAK OPERABLE UNIT REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIA L ACTION

Pursuant to Section XIV (Modificatio n of the Order) of the Administrative Order, EPA hereby approves the followin g deviation

from the approved Work Plan. Thi s modificatio n shall be deemed

incorporated into and has become an enforceable part of this Order.

1. EPA will allow the Respondents to divert drainage from

the Upper California Gulch to the Yak Operable Unit Water Treatment Plant {"WTP") for treatment and discharge into the California Gulch.

2. The purpose of this diversion is to obtain additional

engineering data regarding the WTP capacity arid a treatability

study for surface water diversion consistent with the remedial

investigations and feasibilit y studies being performed by any or

all of the Respondents pursuant to other Administrative Orders in

effec t for the Site .

Data collected shall include:

O &M costs for the WTP to treat spring or stormwater

runoff ,

T he effect s of sediment from runoff on WTP equipment

a nd resultant sludge TCLP characteristics,
Daily average dissolved and total metal concentrations, Total Suspended Soilds ("TSS") , an d flo w from the

drainage diversion.

3. During the course of this data collection. Respondents

shall continue to comply with all other terms of this Order,

including the WTP effluen t limitations established in Appendix l.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY , REGION VII I

B Y; x^x^S^^^l^-^X___________ DATE:. Ifo&ert L. DUR^V-T—Di^e'ctor Hazardous Wateajaagemen t Division
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6603** 

MARLON GOODWIN , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. ALVIN W. KELLER, JR. , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00679

- NCT

- LPA )

Submitted : August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Marlon Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not b inding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marlon Goodwin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying the Fed. R. C iv. P. 59(e) motion filed in Goodwin’s 28
U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 20 13) motion after Goodwin filed a notice of appeal. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assess ment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goodwin has not made the re quisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6,1

Eastern Division

Larry R Butts, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−04887

Honorable John F. Grady

National Railroad Passenger Corporation, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, February 3, 2014:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John F. Grady: On January 30, 2014, the

parties filed a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice. Accordingly, this action is dismissed

with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs. The status hearing set for February 5,

2014 is stricken. No appearance is required on that date. Civil case terminated. Mailed

notice(cdh, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-04887 Document #: 44 Filed: 02/03/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:97
# C_2016385EN.01000201.xml

| 19.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 385/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 385/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8125 — JAC/Nexperia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 385/03)

On 12 October 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8125. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8125. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Alan
Vituli, Chief Executive Officer of Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 3, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ ALAN VITULI                                  
|Alan Vituli                                      
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

May 12, 2011