alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, G. Anthony Eppolito, certify that: 1)

          I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of American Spectrum Realty, Inc.; 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 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 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 fourth fiscal quarter 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 the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and 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: March 31, 2010

          

          By:/s/ G. Anthony EppolitoG. Anthony Eppolito Chief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 10276 

To direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to clarify 

ATF Form 4473 relating to crimes expunged and rights restored, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 3, 2024 

Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives to clarify ATF Form 4473 relating to crimes 

expunged and rights restored, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Amendment 

5 Rights Restoration and Accountability Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 10276 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF ATF FORM 4473 QUESTION 

2 ABOUT PRIOR CONVICTIONS WHEN EXCEP3 TIONS APPLY. 

4 Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of 

5 this Act, the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

6 Firearms, and Explosives shall issue a rule providing for 

7 Question 21.d., and the Notices, Instructions, and Defini8 tions relating to that question, on ATF Form 4473 to be 

9 revised to more clearly inform a reader of the form of— 

10 (1) the existence of the exceptions for the re11 ceipt of a pardon, the expungement or set aside of 

12 a conviction, and the restoration of rights; and 

13 (2) the correct information to provide in an14 swering that question when any of those exceptions 

15 apply. 

16 SEC. 3. REVIEW OF CHARGES OF FALSE REPRESENTATION 

17 IN ANSWERING PRIOR CONVICTION QUES18 TION ON ATF FORM 4473. 

19 Within 6 months after the date of the enactment of 

20 this Act, the Comptroller General, the Attorney General, 

21 and the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fire22 arms, and Explosives shall jointly— 

23 (1) conduct a review of all cases in which an in24 dividual has been unjustly charged with making a 

25 false representation in answering Question 21.d. on 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 10276 IH

1 ATF Form 4473 since the date of the enactment of 

2 the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act; and 

3 (2) determine whether— 

4 (A) any such charge was brought; and 

5 (B) any funds made available under such 

6 Act were used in bringing any such charge. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 32 (Friday, February 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 10236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03347]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

Notice of Public Meetings of the Minnesota Advisory Committee

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
(Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Minnesota 
Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting via the online 
platform WebEx on Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. Central Time. 
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss civil rights concerns in the 
state.

DATES: The meeting will be held on:

 Tuesday, March 2, 2021, at 12:00 p.m. Central Time
Web link: https://civilrights.webex.com/civilrights/j.php?MTID=m420abb3fcbead88ea6b941423d45b858
Join by phone: 800-360-9505 USA Toll Free
Access Code: 199 498 4717

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Barreras, Designated Federal 
Officer, at [email protected] or (202) 499-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members of the public may listen to this 
discussion through the above call-in number. An open comment period 
will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as 
time allows. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they 
initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The 
Commission will not refund any incurred charges. An individual who is 
deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by 
first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing 
the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the 
comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days 
following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to David 
Barreras at [email protected].
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Regional Programs Unit Office, as they become available, both 
before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available 
via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, 
Minnesota Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of 
this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above 
email address.

Agenda

I. Welcome & Roll Call
II. Chair's Comments
III. Committee Discussion
IV. Public Comment
VI. Adjournment

    Dated: February 12, 2021.
David Mussatt,
Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
[FR Doc. 2021-03347 Filed 2-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
#### In the Matter of Sarbet Associates, Appellant, v. Robert E. Herman, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent.

Motion by petitioner-appellant for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, denied. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Paul T. Miess et al., Respondents, v. Robert Walkowiak et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: There is insufficient support in the record for the order made three years after the accident and 18 months after plaintiff’s original bill had been served. *“A*motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars must be supported by an affidavit of a person with knowledge of the facts ” (6 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 36:67; *Montondo*v. *Petty,*21 A D 2d 975). The hearsay affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney and the minutes of her examination before trial fail to show that the new particulars were unknown when the original bill was served and show no facts excusing her delay in seeking the relief. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term granting plaintiff’s motion to serve an amended bill of particulars.) Present—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
# C_2018105EN.01000301.xml

| 20.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 March 2018

(2018/C 105/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2309 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,65 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4484 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87593 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,0838 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1717 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 122,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5205 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,432 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,98 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2171 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6677 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,8584 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5994 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6105 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6537 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7066 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6223 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 321,16 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,8916 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7944 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4295 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 958,11 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8184 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,174 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,3661 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,416 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0567 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,1871 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,2455 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2309

JPY

Japanese yen

130,65

DKK

Danish krone

7,4484

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87593

SEK

Swedish krona

10,0838

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1717

ISK

Iceland króna

122,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5205

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,432

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,98

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2171

RON

Romanian leu

4,6677

TRY

Turkish lira

4,8584

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5994

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6105

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6537

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7066

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6223

KRW

South Korean won

1 321,16

ZAR

South African rand

14,8916

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7944

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4295

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 958,11

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8184

PHP

Philippine peso

64,174

RUB

Russian rouble

71,3661

THB

Thai baht

38,416

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0567

MXN

Mexican peso

23,1871

INR

Indian rupee

80,2455

---

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

1

Source

---
KHARII W. BRODIE, individually and as parent and natural guardian of B.B. and S.B., Plaintiffs,
v. KATHERINE WORTHINGTON, et al., Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action 09-01828 (HHK)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Kharii W. Brodie, proceeding pro se , brings this action seeking injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages against numerous individuals including the judicial officer who presided over his trial and post-trial proceedings 1 and judges who sit on the appellate tribunal 2that considered the appeal of his convic tions for wire fraud and conspiracy to make false statements to financial institutions to obtain mortgage loans (collectively, “judicial defendants”). Before the Court are the judicial defendants’ motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rules 12 (b)(1), (2), (5), and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [#33], and plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson, which

1 United States District Judge Ellen Huvelle.
2 United States Court of Appeals Judges Da vid B. Sentelle, Douglas H. Ginsburg, Karen LeCraft Henderson, David S. Tatel, Merri ck B. Garland, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas B. Griffith, Brett M. Kava naugh, and Arthur Raymond Randolph.recommends that the motion be granted. 3 Upon consideration of the motion, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robins on, Brodie’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the response thereto, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted for the reasons set forth by Magistrate Judge Robinson in her Report and Recommendation. 4In sum, Brodie failed to properly serve these defendants and, in any event, they are entitled to judicial immunity. Accordingly it is this 31st day of August, 2011, hereby ORDERED that the judicial defendants’ motion to dismiss [#33] is GRANTED
.

Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. United States District Judge

3 This case is referred to Magistrate Judge Robinson for full case management. Referral for full case management means that pursuant to Rule 72.2(a) of the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the Magistrate Judge will determine any motion or matter that arises in this case other than those motions specified in Rule 72.3. With respect to any motion or matter specified in Rule 72.3, the Magistrate Judge will submit a report and a recommendation for the disposition of such motion or matter.
4 The Court has considered the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation de novo . LCvR 72.3(c). 2
#### Fred Kotek, Appellee, v. Charles Kotek, Appellant. John Vokaty et al., Intervening Petitioners, Appellants.

Gen. No. 41,396.

*329opinion filed January 22, 1941.

John A. Cervenka, Jr., and Klenha & Greenfield, for certain appellant;'Irving Breakstone, for certain other appellants; Joseph Lustfield, for appellee; Thomas M. Zasadil, of counsel.

Opinion by

Justice Denis E. Sullivan.

“Not to be published in full.”
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT OF
PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
AND OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 
OF



CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



We, Sara J. Burns, President, and Robert S. Mahoney, Vice President - Controller & Treasurer, Clerk, of Central Maine Power Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) Central Maine Power Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: August 5, 2004

/s/Sara J. Burns                                         Sara J. Burns
       President



/s/Robert S. Mahoney                        
       Robert S. Mahoney
       Vice President - Controller
         & Treasurer, Clerk
#### BOULDER SIGN COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-16603.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 15, 2008.*

Filed June 4, 2008.

*702Ike Lawrence Epstein, Beckley Singleton, CHTD., Las Vegas, NV, E. Adam Webb, Esq., Webb & Porter, L.L.C., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

G. Lance Coburn, Esq., Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, Las Vegas, NV, Randal R. Morrison, Esq., Sabine and Morrison, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: KLEINFELD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MILLS, District Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Richard Mills, Senior United States District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Boulder Sign Company, LLC (“Boulder Sign”) filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Boulder City, Nevada’s (“the City”) ordinance regulating the size of billboard signs violated its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Based on the content-neutral size, height and area restrictions of the ordinance, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the City.

Boulder Sign’s applications to construct new billboards were denied by the City’s Planning Commission and by City Council. Boulder Sign has never claimed its proposed signs conformed to size and height rules under the previous ordinance. The City eventually passed an ordinance which prohibited all new billboards.

We conclude that Boulder Sign has no standing to challenge the ordinance. The signs which it proposed drastically exceeded the maximum height and area allowed under the ordinance which was then in place. The City Council had no discretion under that ordinance to permit signs of the size and height proposed by Boulder Sign. There is no evidence in the record that the City Council or the City’s Planning Commission approved signs that were in excess of the maximum height and area allowed under the previous ordinance. If “[n]o change in the permit procedure would result in the approval of the permits [the sign company] requests,” then the company lacks standing to challenge the permitting process based on a lack of redressability. *See Get Outdoors II v. City of San**703*Diego,*506 F.3d 886, 895 (9th Cir.2007) (citation omitted). Because Boulder Sign’s alleged injury cannot be redressed by a favorable decision, we have no jurisdiction over its section 1983 claims. *See Nordyke v. King,*319 F.3d 1185, 1192 (9th Cir.2003) (stating that it lacked jurisdiction because “Article III standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite”) (citation omitted). We therefore vacate the district court’s order entering summary judgment in favor of the City and remand with instructions to dismiss Boulder Sign’s complaint with prejudice. *See Fleck and Assoc., Inc. v. Phoenix,*471 F.3d 1100, 1106-07 (9th Cir.2006).

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                          17,887
<SECURITIES>                                       666
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     67,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,156
<PP&E>                                          86,769
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,167
<BONDS>                                         26,846
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,678
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173,506
<SALES>                                        319,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               321,621
<CGS>                                          246,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  246,636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                99,461
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,229)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,556)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,673)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,673)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.99)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                           3,042
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,409
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,500
<INVENTORY>                                     37,023
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,710
<PP&E>                                          13,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 268,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          143,301
<BONDS>                                         80,549
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,954
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   268,166
<SALES>                                         77,311
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,311
<CGS>                                           59,048
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,819
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,367)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,367)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,367)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.33)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Norbert Harris, Appellant, v. Daniel McMann, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

Motion, insofar as it seeks permission to file notice of appeal in Clerk’s office of Clinton County *nunc pro turne,*pursuant to CPLR 5520, and permission to proceed as a poor person, granted, without costs, and in all other respects denied. The appeal may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.