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

CERTIFICATION

I, David T.McGraw, certify that:

1.          Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Communications Systems,Inc.;

2.          Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.          Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

4.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 

5.          Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

24

----
State,112 Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996) (internal quotation 

marks and emphasis omitted). In his petition below, Wingo admitted that 

he "understood that the maximum penalty was life" and his signed plea 

agreement states that "I understand that the Court is not bound by the 

agreement of the parties." In light of this signed guilty plea agreement 

and Wingo's admission, he failed to establish by a preponderance of the 

evidence that there was a reasonable probability that he would have 

insisted on going to trial. Accordingly, this factual allegation, even if true, 

did not entitle Wingo to relief and the district court did not err by denying 

him an evidentiary hearing. 

Second, Wingo alleged that his guilty plea agreement and plea 

canvass did not make it clear to him that the district court could impose a 

life sentence. Although Wingo claimed in his petition that he was not 

well-educated, he did not contend that he is illiterate or explain why he 

was unable to understand the terms of his guilty plea agreement. Having 

reviewed Wingo's guilty plea agreement, we conclude that its terms are 

clear. Accordingly, this claim is belied by the record and did not entitle 

Wingo to an evidentiary hearing. 

Third, Wingo alleged that his counsel's investigator coerced 

him into pleading guilty by telling him he would never see his wife and 

daughter again. This statement was not coercive. See Brady v. United 

States,397 U.S. 742, 750-51 (1970). Had Wingo not pleaded guilty and 

insisted on going to trial, he faced a possible sentence of life in prison 

without the possibility of parole. NRS 200.030(4)(b)(1). Accordingly, this 

allegation, if true, would not have entitled Wingo to relief. 

Finally, Wingo alleged that counsel failed to investigate 

certain individuals who may have had a motive to commit the murder. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 

iN.Z=,M{111"1 
3 

MIN 

Wingo failed to name these individuals in his petition or explain what 

evidence such an investigation would have yielded. Such "'naked' 

allegations" did not entitle Wingo to an evidentiary hearing, see Hargrove, 

100 Nev. at 502, 686 P.2d at 225, or satisfy his burden to prove deficiency 

and prejudice, see Kirksey, 112 Nev. at 988, 923 P.2d at 1107. 

Having considered Wingo's contentions and concluded that the 

district court did not err by denying his claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel without an evidentiary hearing, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

J. 

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

Edward T. Reed 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

NEVIIMEMNIZINEE
EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-29287,  33-25913,  333-65817 and 33-48145) of NL
Industries,   Inc.  of  our  report  dated  March  16,  2006,  relating  to  the
consolidated financial statements,  financial statement schedules,  management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial  reporting which appears in
this Form 10-K.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP



Dallas, Texas
March 16, 2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JULIAN EDWARD LARKINS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 234 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Resource: Financial Aid for Unaccompanied Homeless Youth      

# Resource: Financial Aid for Unaccompanied Homeless Youth

This letter (PDF, 2 pages) highlights new policy changes that will remove barriers homeless youth face when accessing financial aid for college. ED plans to change the 2017-18 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FASFA) to be more supportive of homeless students and will remove the definition of “youth” to allow for a smoother process for 22 and 23 year old students to determine their independent status. 

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Murrary%20-%20Response(1).pdf
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In the Interest of P.M.G., a Child

No. 06

- 12

- 00120

- CV Appeal from the County Court at Law of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 05D1047

- CCL ). Opinion delivered by Justice Cart er, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, we remand the case to the trial court to determine the

amount Bruce Garner, Jr., is obligated for medical support arrearage due before July 22, 2011. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order th at the appellant pay three

- fourths (3/4) and the appellee pay one

fourth (1/4) of all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 16, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Jordan Shames, Appellant, v Home Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*to declare that the Home Insurance Company is obligated to provide Jordan Shames with coverage and a defense pursuant to an excess insurance policy, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 18, 1978, which, *inter alia,*determined that Jordan Shames did not have the required underlying insurance to invoke the provisions of the excess insurance policy issued by the Home Insurance Company. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We agree with Special Term that the exclusion, when read with the entire policy, clearly and unambiguously excludes any coverage as to land motor vehicles, unless the applicable underlying insurance is maintained. What appellant seeks, in effect, is to convert this personal excess and catastrophe policy into prime insurance for his motorcycle, for which no underlying insurance was maintained. This appellant cannot do. Mangano, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
2992898

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 20-0052

GARY AND CAROLYN KAUL,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL 

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellee.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) 

has requested a 30-day extension from June 5, 2020, up to and including July 6, 

2020, to file its Response Brief in this matter. Good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee State Farm shall have until and 

including July 6, 2020, within which to file its Response Brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 5 2020

06/05/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0052

FILED

Bowen Greenwood

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF MONTANA

06/08/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0052
**EXHIBIT 21.1**The following table sets forth the name and jurisdiction of incorporation/charter of theRegistrant’s subsidiaries. Inactive subsidiaries are not listed. Except as noted, all of thesubsidiaries are 100% owned by Bank Mutual.   Name of Subsidiary Jurisdiction of Incorporation/CharterBank Mutual (1) USAFirst Northern Investments, Inc. NevadaBancMutual Financial & Insurance Services, Inc. WisconsinMC Development LTD WisconsinMutual Investment Corporation Nevada (1) Direct subsidiary of Bank Mutual Corporation.Two other entities are 50% owned by Bank Mutual   Name of Subsidiary Jurisdiction of Incorporation/CharterSavings Financial Corporation (50% owned) WisconsinArrowood Development LLC (50% owned) (2) Wisconsin (2) Owned by MC Development LTD
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>                 THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                         INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10Q DATED 
                         MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
                         ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
                         STATEMENTS
<MULTIPLIER>             1000
            
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                           239231
<SECURITIES>                     1171998
<RECEIVABLES>                    77964
<ALLOWANCES>                     5273
<INVENTORY>                      2722
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 1611392
<PP&E>                           153399
<DEPRECIATION>                   104541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   2179017
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            249995
<BONDS>                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      5884
<COMMON>                         17091
<OTHER-SE>                       1362207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     2179017
<SALES>                          5399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 104974
<CGS>                            3472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    95634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  9141
<INCOME-TAX>                     3500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              1770
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                     1770
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                    .04
        

</TABLE>
#### 632.706 Contract clauses.
## NUMBER 13
- 1 5
- 00 17 1
- C V


## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ P. PALIVELA RAJU, M. D. , A ppellant ,

v.
DIANNE JACKSON , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 23rd District Court of Matagorda County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria Order Per Curiam

Th is cause is before the Court on appellant’s motion for rehearing and his motion
to reinstate

. This Court previously issued a memorandum opinion and judgment dismissing the appeal f or lack of jurisdiction

. See Raju, M.D. v. Jackson , No. 13

- 15

-
00 171

- CV, 2015 WL 1956948 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi April 30, 2015, no. pet. h.)2

(mem. op.) (per curiam). The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's
motion for rehearing is of the opinion that a ppellant timely mailed his notice of appeal , and therefore, we grant his motion for rehearing. Accordingly, we withdraw our
memorandum opinion and judgment issued on April 30, 2015. We further grant appellant’ s motion to reinstate his accelerated appeal. Because
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record have been filed in this appeal , appellant’s brief
will be due within twenty days of the date of this order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6 (a).
It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 11th day of May , 201 5

.
#### 8.701 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Allocation,* means an action taken by a central nonprofit agency to designate the AbilityOne participating nonprofit agencies that will furnish definite quantities of supplies or perform specific services upon receipt of orders from ordering offices.

*Central nonprofit agency,* means National Industries for the Blind (NIB), which has been designated to represent people who are blind; or NISH, which has been designated to represent AbilityOne participating nonprofit agencies serving people with severe disabilities other than blindness.

*Committee,* means the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

*Government* or *entity of the Government* means any entity of the legislative or judicial branch, any executive agency, military department, Government corporation, or independent establishment, the U.S. Postal Service, or any nonappropriated-fund instrumentality of the Armed Forces.

*Ordering office* means any activity in an entity of the Government that places orders for the purchase of supplies or services under the AbilityOne Program.

*Procurement List,* means a list of supplies (including military resale commodities) and services that the Committee has determined are suitable for purchase by the Government under 41 U.S.C. chapter 85.

*Nonprofit agency serving people who are blind* or *nonprofit agency serving people with other severe disabilities* (referred to jointly as AbilityOne participating nonprofit agencies) means a qualified nonprofit agency employing people who are blind or have other severe disabilities approved by the Committee to furnish a commodity or a service to the Government under 41 U.S.C. chapter 85.

[59 FR 67027, Dec. 28, 1994, as amended at 66 FR 2128, Jan. 10, 2001; 73 FR 53995, Sept. 17, 2008; 79 FR 24199, Apr. 29, 2014; 84 FR 19844, May 6, 2019]
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Our World: The Stories Moon Rocks Tell      

# Resource: Our World: The Stories Moon Rocks Tell

This video explores how researchers are using new instruments and modern technology to study and analyze six preserved core samples of moon rocks. The video shares how moon rocks can unravel the stories and mysteries about the Moon, Earth, and our solar system. **Learn more.**
9905.505-40 Fundamental requirement. ( a ) Costs expressly unallowable or mutually agreed to be unallowable, including costs mutually agreed to be unallowable directly associated costs, shall be identified and excluded from any billing, claim, or proposal applicable to a Government contract.
( b ) Costs which specifically become designated as unallowable as a result of a written decision furnished by a contracting officer pursuant to contract disputes procedures shall be identified if included in or used in the computation of any billing, claim, or proposal applicable to a Government contract. This identification requirement applies also to any costs incurred for the same purpose under like circumstances as the costs specifically identified as unallowable under either this paragraph or paragraph (a) of this subsection.
( c ) Costs which, in a contracting officer's written decision furnished pursuant to contract disputes procedures, are designated as unallowable directly associated costs of unallowable costs covered by either paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection shall be accorded the identification required by paragraph (b) of this subsection.
( d ) The costs of any work project not contractually authorized, whether or not related to performance of a proposed or existing contract, shall be accounted for, to the extent appropriate, in a manner which permits ready separation from the costs of authorized work projects.
( e ) All unallowable costs covered by paragraphs (a) through (d) of this subsection shall be subject to the same cost accounting principles governing cost allocability as allowable costs. In circumstances where these unallowable costs normally would be part of a regular indirect-cost allocation base or bases, they shall remain in such base or bases. Where a directly associated cost is part of a category of costs normally included in an indirect-cost pool that will be allocated over a base containing the unallowable cost with which it is associated, such a directly associated cost shall be retained in the indirect-cost pool and be allocated through the regular allocation process.
( f ) Where the total of the allocable and otherwise allowable costs exceeds a limitation-of-cost or ceiling-price provision in a contract, full direct and indirect cost allocation shall be made to the contract cost objective, in accordance with established cost accounting practices and Standards which regularly govern a given entity's allocations to Government contract cost objectives. In any determination of unallowable cost overrun, the amount thereof shall be identified in terms of the excess of allowable costs over the ceiling amount, rather than through specific identification of particular cost items or cost elements.