alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 I, Michael J. Sallmann, Vice President  Finance and Secretary of Criticare Systems, Inc., certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Criticare Systems, 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 made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
  (c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter 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 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 control over financial reporting.
 
 Date:  February 4, 2004
 
 chael J. Sallmann
 Vice President - Finance and Secretary
 
 2
§ 95.53 Termination of facility clearance. ( a ) If the need to use, process, store, reproduce, transmit, transport, or handle classified matter no longer exists, the facility clearance will be terminated. The licensee, certificate holder, or other person for the facility may deliver all documents and matter containing classified information to the Commission, or to a person authorized to receive them, or must destroy all classified documents and matter. In either case, the licensee, certificate holder, or other person for the facility shall submit a certification of nonpossession of classified information to the NRC Division of Security Operations within 30 days of the termination of the facility clearance.
( b ) In any instance where a facility clearance has been terminated based on a determination of the CSA that further possession of classified matter by the facility would not be in the interest of the national security, the licensee, certificate holder, or other person for the facility shall, upon notice from the CSA, dispose of classified documents in a manner specified by the CSA.
[72 FR 49564, Aug. 28, 2007, as amended at 74 FR 62686, Dec. 1, 2009]
# EUR-Lex - 31989D0282 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31989D0282

**89/282/EEC: Commission Decision of 7 April 1989 provisionally suspending approval of an establishment on the list of establishments in Brazil approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community **

*
Official Journal L 110 , 21/04/1989 P. 0054 - 0054 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 29 P. 0007 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 29 P. 0007 *

*****

COMMISSION DECISION

of 7 April 1989

provisionally suspending approval of an establishment on the list of establishments in Brazil approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community

(89/282/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat from third countries (1), as last amended by Directive 88/657/EEC (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas the list of establishments in Brazil approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community was originally established by Commission Decision 81/713/EEC (3), as last amended by Decision C(89) 145 (4);

Whereas, pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 72/462/EEC, an inspection was carried out in certain establishments in Brazil, which led to some doubts regarding the establishment 'Bon Beef Indústria e Comércio de Carnes SA, Vinhedo, São Paulo' (veterinary approval No SIF 1602), in particular as regards compliance with Article 4 (2) (c) of that Directive;

Whereas information and documents on that establishment have been brought to the notice of the Commission;

Whereas the information and documents show that meat from that establishment does not tally with the health certificate accompanying such meat; whereas, accordingly the origin of such meat, its status as regards the foot-and-mouth disease virus and its suitability for human consumption is suspect;

Whereas this information constitutes serious facts within the meaning of Article 5 of Dirctive 72/462/EEC; whereas the Member States have been notified thereof in accordance with that provision;

Whereas Community approval of that establishment must be suspended provisionally until a final decision is taken in this respect,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Approval of the Brazilian establishment Bon Beef Indústria e Comércio de Carnes SA, Vinhedo, São Paulo (veterinary approval No SIF 1602) on the list in the Annex to Decision 81/713/EEC is hereby suspended.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 April 1989.

For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 302, 31. 12. 1972, p. 28.

(2) OJ No L 382, 31. 12. 1988, p. 3.

(3) OJ No L 257, 10. 9. 1981, p. 28.

(4) OJ No C 26, 1. 2. 1989, p. 5.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                              3,634
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                       9,589
<ALLOWANCES>                          190
<INVENTORY>                            19
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      591
<PP&E>                              6,380
<DEPRECIATION>                      5,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     15,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               3,671
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                               96
<OTHER-SE>                         11,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       15,456
<SALES>                            18,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   18,718
<CGS>                               3,832
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      14,890
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     3,822
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,579
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 2,243
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        2,243
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.21 
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.21
        

</TABLE>
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Leland F. Bunch,III, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the Morgan StanleyBank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C8 (the "Exchange Act periodicreports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

Wells Fargo Bank,National Association, as Master Servicer, NS Servicing II, LLC, as Special Servicer,U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank, NationalAssociation, as Custodian, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor, CoreLogicCommercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant,National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant, Midland LoanServices, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Primary Servicer forthe Chrysler East Building Mortgage Loan, Midland Loan Services, a Division ofPNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer for the Chrysler EastBuilding Mortgage Loan, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for theChrysler East Building Mortgage Loan, U.S. Bank National Association, asCertificate Administrator for the Chrysler East Building Mortgage Loan, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Custodian for the Chrysler East BuildingMortgage Loan, and Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor for the Chrysler EastBuilding Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 28, 2018

 

 

/s/ Leland F. Bunch,III

 

 

Chief ExecutiveOfficer and President 

(senior officer in charge ofsecuritization of the depositor)
§ 76.95 Training. A training program must be established, implemented, and maintained for individuals relied upon to operate, maintain, or modify the GDPs in a safe manner. The training program shall be based on a systems approach to training that includes the following: ( a ) Systematic analysis of the jobs to be performed.
( b ) Learning objectives derived from the analysis which describe desired performance after training.
( c ) Training design and implementation based on the learning objectives.
( d ) Evaluation of trainee mastery of the objectives during training.
( e ) Evaluation and revision of the training based on the performance of trained personnel in the job setting.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlantis Business DevelopmentCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I Christopher Dubeau, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

By: 

*/s/ Christopher Dubeau*

Christopher Dubeau

CEO

Dated:    November 20, 2006
(March 9, 1970)

#### Jean Smith et al., Respondents, v. Ann Surin, Appellant.

Memorandum by the Court. Appeal from an order of the County Court of Schenectady County, entered March 17, 1969, which granted plaintiffs’ application to be relieved from the effect of a preclusion order and permitted service of a late bill of particulars. In this negligence action commenced in 1967, based on an automobile accident occurring in 1964, appellant’s demand for a bill of particulars was not complied with. When appellant moved for an order of preclusion, respondents failed to appear in opposition and filed no opposing affidavits. Appellant contends that she caused a copy of the preclusion order to be served upon respondents’ attorney by mail on December 8, 1967, and submits an affidavit of service in support of this statement. A bill of particulars was served 11 months after the entry of the preclusion order. Respondents’ attorney attempts to excuse this delay on the basis that “to the best of his knowledge he never received the order of preclusion ”. While noting that the “ plaintiffs’ attorney has not prosecuted this action with diligence ”, the County Court, nevertheless, excused the delay on the basis that “ The plaintiffs herein should not be prejudiced by any act of inadvertence, if any, upon the part of their attorney ”. We cannot condone the attitude of respondents’ attorney who offers no reasonable excuse for his conduct of this ease. Although the accident occurred in 1964, he delayed commencing the action for three years. He further delayed 20 months before complying with the demand for a bill of particulars. In the meantime he completely ignored the motion for a preclusion order, neither appearing in opposition nor bothering to reply to it. We cite with approval the statement of Mr. Justice Zeller in Pans v. *Poticha*(1 A D 2d 277, 279) when, speaking for this court, he said: “for the sake of a more expeditious disposition of cases generally there must come a point beyond which failure to serve a bill of particulars should not be excused regardless of the consequences. We believe that point was passed in this case.” Order reversed, ón the law and the facts, with costs, and motion denied. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.
#### WAGNER v. MISHEL et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Appeal from Blunicipal Court, Borough of Blanhattan, First District. Action by Louis Wagner against Morris Blishel and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Blodified and affirmed. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1148.

House, Grossman & Vorhaus, of New York City, for appellants.

Henry Silverman, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this action plaintiff has recovered a judgment for the sum of $62.50. The defendants have shown that the services charged for were not done in a workmanlike manner, to their damage of $25. The judgment in the lower court will therefore be modified, by reducing the same to the sum of $37.50, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. .
(May 19, 1970)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Nathaniel Williams, Appellant.

Appeal from order entered on November 19, 1968, unanimously dismissed as moot. No opinion. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.
227 So.2d 148

#### William P. RYAN v. STATE of Louisiana et al.

No. 50184.

Oct 23, 1969.

In re: William P. Ryan applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1063 

Designating room H–226 of the United States Capitol as the ‘‘Lincoln 

Room’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2018 

Mr. LAHOOD (for himself, Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mr. 

LIPINSKI, Mr. GUTIE ́RREZ, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. DANNY K. 

DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. RUSH, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Mr. 

FOSTER, Mr. BOST, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. HULTGREN, Mr. 

SHIMKUS, Mr. KINZINGER, and Mrs. BUSTOS) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

RESOLUTION 

Designating room H–226 of the United States Capitol as 

the ‘‘Lincoln Room’’. 

Whereas Abraham Lincoln was elected to the House of Representatives in 1846 to represent the 7th Congressional 

District of Illinois in the Thirtieth Congress from March 

1847 to March 1849; 

Whereas Abraham Lincoln served the people for 15 years as 

a State Legislator, Member of Congress, and President 

of the United States; 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1063 IH 

Whereas Abraham Lincoln was a member of the Illinois General Assembly for four terms and was respected as an effective leader of his party and a popular campaigner; 

Whereas during Congressman Lincoln’s tenure, the room now 

designated as room H–226 of the United States Capitol 

was used as the post office of the House, where he spent 

almost every morning exchanging stories near the fireplace; 

Whereas the old post office space was just steps away from 

Congressman Lincoln’s desk, where he worked and voted 

and is now marked by a gold plaque on the floor of Statuary Hall; 

Whereas Congressman Lincoln was known to be the champion story-teller of the Capitol, having an endless repertoire of tales; 

Whereas Abraham Lincoln was one of America’s greatest 

presidents, whose life was a story of adversity, perseverance, and leadership; and 

Whereas when the United States was at its darkest hour, 

Abraham Lincoln fought to end slavery and brought the 

country back together: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That room H–226 of the United States 

2 Capitol is designated as the ‘‘Lincoln Room’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### § 1108.80 Claim.

*Claim* means a written demand or written assertion by one of the parties to an award seeking as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of an award term or condition, or other relief arising under or relating to the award. A routine request for payment that is not in dispute when submitted is not a claim. The submission may be converted to a claim by written notice to the grants or agreements officer if it is disputed either as to liability or amount or is not acted upon in a reasonable time.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 585 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 585

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to direct the Chief 
  Administrative Officer to carry out an annual information security 
  training program for Members, officers, and employees of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 24, 2017

    Miss Rice of New York (for herself and Mr. Katko) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to direct the Chief 
  Administrative Officer to carry out an annual information security 
  training program for Members, officers, and employees of the House.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``Congressional Cybersecurity 
Training Resolution of 2017''.

SEC. 2. ANNUAL INFORMATION SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAM FOR HOUSE MEMBERS, 
              OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES.

    Clause 4 of rule II of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(e)(1) The Chief Administrative Officer shall carry out an annual 
information security training program for Members (including the 
Delegates and Resident Commissioner), officers, and employees of the 
House.
    ``(2) A new Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or 
employee of the House shall receive training under this paragraph not 
later than 30 days after beginning service to the House.
    ``(3) Not later than January 31 of each year, each officer and 
employee of the House shall file a certification with the Chief 
Administrative Officer that the officer or employee completed an 
information security training program as established by this 
paragraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### PERRY v. ROCHESTER LIME CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 7, 1914.)

Action bj; William J. Perry, Sr., against the Rochester Lime Company.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. For former decision, see 147 N. Y. Supp. 1136. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1138.