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

EXHIBIT 31.2 -- CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) FOR ANNUAL REPORT OF
FORM 10-K BY PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michael A. Carty, certify that:

1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of First Financial
Corporation;

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 officers 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 annual report is being
   prepared;

   (b) [reserved]

   (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; and

   (d) 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

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

Date: March 15, 2005

Michael A. Carty, Signed
---------------------------------
Michael A. Carty
Secretary, Treasurer and CFO
31.110 Indirect cost rate certification and penalties on unallowable costs. ( a ) Certain contracts require certification of the indirect cost rates proposed for final payment purposes. See 42.703-2 for administrative procedures regarding the certification provisions and the related contract clause prescription.
( b ) If unallowable costs are included in final indirect cost settlement proposals, penalties may be assessed. See 42.709 for administrative procedures regarding the penalty assessment provisions and the related contract clause prescription.
[60 FR 42658, Aug. 16, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 237, Jan. 2, 1997]
- 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

|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

## FY 2023

Appropriation: $1,619,540Number of New Awards: 22, 11 Research, Studies or Surveys Projects and 11 Specialized Instructional Materials ProjectsAverage New Award: $73,615

## FY 2022

Appropriation: $978,215Number of Continuation Awards: 17Average New Award: $57,542

## FY 2021

Appropriation: $1,019,702Number of Continuation Awards: 15Average Continuation Award: $56,236Number of New Awards: 3 Average New Award: $58,717 

## FY 2020

Appropriation: $863,348  Number of New Awards: 15Average New Award: $57,557

## FY 2019

No new awards

## FY 2018

No new awards

## FY 2017

Appropriation: $712,329Number of New Awards: 8Average New Award: $89,041

## FY 2016 

No new awards

## FY 2015

No new awards

## FY 2014

No new awards

## FY 2013

No new awards

## FY 2012

Appropriation: $1,700,889Number of Continuation Awards: 10Average Continuation Award: $170,089Number of New Awards: 0

## FY 2011

Appropriation: $2,422,500Number of Continuation Awards: 29Average Continuation Award: $83,534Number of New Awards: 0

## FY 2010

Appropriation: $7,151,628Number of Continuation Awards: 33Average Continuation Award: $158,508Number of New Awards: 12Average New Award: $160,072

IFLE Home

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-21020

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUMALDO SOLIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-94-CR-272-14

--------------------

August 20, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Rumaldo Solis, federal prisoner #66932-079, appeals the

denial of his FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(b)(2) motion. He has also moved

this court to dismiss his appeal without prejudice. 

Solis challenges the indictment on the bases that it failed

to cite the statutes under which he was indicted, it omitted the

time parameters during which the conspiracy was alleged to have

occurred, and it did not explicitly state the amount of drugs
No. 01-21020

-2-

with which he was charged. Jurisdiction did not lie in the

district court under Rule 12(b)(2), however, because none of

these allegations amounts to a claim that the indictment failed

to charge an offense. Therefore, he was required to raise these

alleged defects pretrial. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(b)(2); United

States v. Freeman, 619 F.2d 1112, 1118 (5th Cir. 1980)

(contention that the indictment lacked the specificity required

by the Sixth Amendment was waived by failure to object before

trial). 

Solis's motion to dismiss the indictment was thus

unauthorized and without a jurisdictional basis. See United

States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting that

district court should have dismissed unauthorized postconviction

motion for lack of jurisdiction). This appeal is without

arguable merit and therefore dismissed as frivolous. See Howard

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.
# C_2021104EN.01000401.xml

| 26.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/4

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2021/C 104/04)

Image 1

National side of the new commemorative 2-euro coin intended for circulation and issued by Lithuania

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

Issuing country: Lithuania

Subject of commemoration: UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme - Žuvintas Biosphere Reserve

Description of the design: The design depicts the characteristic surroundings of Žuvintas Biosphere Reserve, which belongs to the World Network of Biosphere Reserves of UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere Programme: remote islands of a unique bird lake and Lithuania’s largest wetland as well as its distinctive animals.

In the foreground there is a great bittern reaching for a fire-bellied toad floating in the water. In rushes depicted on the right there is an aquatic warbler, above – a flock of common cranes and a mute swan, symbolising the establishment of the Reserve.

The design is surrounded by inscriptions LIETUVA (LITHUANIA), ŽUVINTAS, UNESCO, the year of issue (2021) and the mintmark of the Lithuanian Mint.

The design is realised by Eglė Ratkutė and Ernestas Žemaitis.

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Estimated number of coins to be issued: 500 000

Date of issue: Second quarter of 2021

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

---
#### Trude A. Wiehe, appellee, v. H. W. Fuller, appellant.

Gen. No. 30,661.

Action for damage to automobile in collision. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Samuel H. Trude, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1925.

Reversed with finding of fact.

Opinion filed June 23, 1926.

William Greene and H. L. Howard, for appellant.

Simon T. Sutton, for appellee; Harry A. Goldsmith, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### 252.225-7019 Restriction on Acquisition of Anchor and Mooring Chain.

As prescribed in 225.7004-7(a), use the following clause:

# Restriction on Acquisition of Anchor and Mooring Chain (MAY 2024)

(a) *Definition.* As used in this clause—

*Component* means an article, material, or supply incorporated directly into an end product.

(b) Welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain delivered under this contract—

(1) Shall be manufactured in the United States or its outlying areas, including cutting, heat treating, quality control, testing, and welding (both forging and shot blasting process); and

(2) The cost of the components manufactured in the United States or its outlying areas shall exceed 50 percent of the total cost of components.

(c) The Contractor may request a waiver of this restriction if adequate domestic supplies meeting the requirements in paragraph (b) of this clause are not available to meet the contract delivery schedule.

(d) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (d), in all subcontracts for items containing welded shipboard anchor and mooring chain.

(End of clause)

[68 FR 15637, Mar. 31, 2003, as amended at 70 FR 35547, June 21, 2005; 74 FR 68384, Dec. 24, 2009; 89 FR 46815, May 30, 2024]
EXHIBIT 12.4

                          WEST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                   FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
                            (Thousands Except Ratio)
                                   (Unaudited)

Operating Income                                                     $44,751

Adjustments:
  Income taxes                                                        15,087
  Provision for deferred income taxes                                 (4,189)
  Deferred investment tax credits                                     (1,321)
  Other income and deductions                                          2,057
   Allowance for borrowed and equity funds
      used during construction                                           836
                                                                    --------
        Earnings                                                     $57,221
                                                                    ========


Fixed Charges:
  Interest on long-term debt                                         $20,352
  Interest on short-term debt and other                                4,600
                                                                    --------
        Fixed Charges                                                $24,952
                                                                    ========


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                      2.29
                                                                    ========
# C_2019179EN.01000101.xml

| 24.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

23 May 2019

(2019/C 179/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1139 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,56 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4684 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88100 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,7373 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1224 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7543 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,821 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 326,95 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3064 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7606 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,8308 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6199 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5000 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7424 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7155 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5391 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 327,41 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,0935 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7058 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4265 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 129,83 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6728 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,498 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,0525 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,639 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5187 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,1883 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,9150 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1139

JPY

Japanese yen

122,56

DKK

Danish krone

7,4684

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88100

SEK

Swedish krona

10,7373

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1224

ISK

Iceland króna

138,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7543

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,821

HUF

Hungarian forint

326,95

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3064

RON

Romanian leu

4,7606

TRY

Turkish lira

6,8308

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6199

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5000

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7424

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7155

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5391

KRW

South Korean won

1 327,41

ZAR

South African rand

16,0935

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7058

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4265

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 129,83

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6728

PHP

Philippine peso

58,498

RUB

Russian rouble

72,0525

THB

Thai baht

35,639

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5187

MXN

Mexican peso

21,1883

INR

Indian rupee

77,9150

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
Third Department,

August, 1964

(August 4, 1964)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Paul John Phillips, Appellant.

Upon the consent of the respondent, order denying, without a hearing, a motion *in*the nature of a writ of error *coram nobis*reversed, on the law and the facts, and matter remitted to the County Court for hearing and determination. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DANIEL GUADALUPE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2207

[March 11, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Jeffrey Dana Gillen, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502014CF012921.

Daniel Guadalupe, Bonifay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, KLINGENSMITH, and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 3.1

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT  OF THE  ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION  OF  NATIONAL MERCANTILE BANCORP

The
undersigned do hereby certify that:



We
further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the matters set forth in this Certificate are true and correct of our own knowledge.

|Date: May 2, 2000                                         |  |                                                                                       |  |       
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------
|/s/ Scott A. Montgomery                                   |  | /s/ Joseph W. Kiley III                                                               |  | [SEAL]
|Scott A. Montgomery
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | Joseph W. Kiley III
Executive Vice President - Operations and
Chief Financial Officer

---

QuickLinks
#### McADOO, Respondent, v. UNION TRUST CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by William G. McAdoo against the Union Trust Company of Maryland.

No opinion. Appeal dismissed, without costs, on the ground that the cause has been removed, since the argument, to the United States Circuit Court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

In re Federal National Mortgage 

Association Securities, Derivative, and 

"ERISA" Litigation 

Federal Housing Finance Agency as 

Conservator for the Federal National 

Mortgage Association v. Mudd, et al. 

Arthur) 

MDLNo.1668 

Civil Case No. 07-2130 (RJL) 

+-

MEMORANDUM ORDER 

(Julyn-, 2010) [#39] 

This case, formerly captioned as Arthur v. Mudd, is one of four shareholder 

derivative actions still pending against a long list of former officers and directors of the 

Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae").) Patricia Browne Arthur 

originally brought the case, (see Compl. [# 1]), but she has since been replaced as the 

shareholder derivative plaintiff by the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), the 

statutorily-authorized conservator of Fannie Mae, (see Mem. Order [#33]). Now before 

the Court is FHFA's Motion for Approval of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice 

[#39] under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23.1(c) and 41(a). For the following 

reasons, FHFA's motion is GRANTED. 

The Federal Rules provide that a derivative action may be "voluntarily dismissed . 

. . only with the court's approval." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1(c). Voluntary dismissal by court 

order is without prejudice unless the court states otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 

I The other cases were originally captioned as Kellmer v. Raines (Civ. No. 07-

1173), Middleton v. Raines (Civ. No. 07-1221), and Agnes v. Raines (Civ. No. 08-1093). 

1 
These dismissals are generally "granted in the federal courts unless the defendant would 

suffer prejudice other than the prospect of a second lawsuit or some tactical 

disadvantage." Conafay v. Wyeth Labs., 793 F.2d 350,353 (D.C. Cir. 1986). 

Having failed to file any opposition to FHF A's motion, the defendants have given 

the Court no reason to believe that they would suffer serious legal injury if the case were 

dismissed without prejudice. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7 (b) provides that if an 

opposing party fails to file a memorandum in opposition within the prescribed time limit, 

the court may treat the motion as conceded. LCvR 7(b). Whether to treat the motion as 

conceded is highly discretionary, and our Circuit Court has noted that "[w]here the 

district court relies on the absence of a response as a basis for treating the motion as 

conceded, [the D.C. Circuit will] honor its enforcement of the rule." Twelve John Does v. 

District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Because the defendants have 

not opposed FHF A's motion for voluntary dismissal, the Court will treat it as conceded. 

Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED that FHFA's Motion for Approval of Voluntary Dismissal without 

Prejudice [#39] is GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

SO ORDERED. 

2
#### 249.109 Settlement agreements.
DAN BENISHEK M.D. MEMBER OF CONGRESS FIRST DISTRICT, MICHIGAN

## <!Congrr~s 

# of 

# tl)e mlnttrb**~tntrs** 

# }!)ouse of 3L'-epresent,lttl.les

The Honorable Ray LaHood Secretary ofTransportation U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE**W;:~shington,** DC 20590 Dear Secretary LaHood: June 14, 2012 514 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-2201 (202) 225-4735 'NWW. BENISHEK HOUSE.G()V

I am writingthis tetter on behalf ofthe city ofAlpena, Michigan, regarding Essentic:ff::Air (EAS) at Alpena Regional Airport. ·- After the U.S. Department ofTransportation's fourth Requestfor Proposals concluded, it is my understanding that four carriers submitted proposals to provide EAS to Alpena. On May 30, 2012, Matthew Waliora, Mayor of Alpena, formally responded toyour Department on the advantages and disadvantages of each carrier's proposal. I urge your Department's serious consideration ofthe community's preferred carrier and the concerns it has identified with the other proposals. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. I appreciate your Department's continued willingness to work with the community ofAlpena in selecting a replacement carrier. Sincerely, 

# )< // /)h 

### lf. j,;).f-<..,.._

## < (.<1

..

# if ' - .. " ' 

## \ Dan Benishek M.D. Member of Congress Michigan First District