alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Uzi Sasson, certify that:1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of IXYS Corporation;2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Date: July 29, 2005
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-14-00346-CV 

________________________

JANE T. DURHAM, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

MARGARET L. DURHAM, NANCY C. STEWART, DAVID DURHAM, 

AND BARBARA FLOURNOY, APPELLEES 

 

 

On Appeal from the 237th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2013-509,100; Honorable Leslie Hatch, Presiding 

 

September 11, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Pending before the court is a joint motion to dismiss this appeal following the 

death of Appellant, Jane T. Durham. In response, the court ordered Appellant’s counsel 

to show authority to dismiss the appeal on behalf of Ms. Durham’s estate. Durham v. 

Durham, No. 07-14-00346-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8720 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 

August 14, 2015, order). The court has now considered the Amended Joint Motion for 
2

Dismissal of Appeal and is satisfied that the executors of Ms. Durham’s estate have 

authorized dismissal of the appeal.

Accordingly, without passing on the merits of the appeal, the motion is granted 

and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Having dismissed this 

appeal upon the joint motion to dismiss, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and 

our mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.123 What general requirements apply regarding equipment and tools subject to this subpart? All of the following requirements apply regarding equipment and tools subject to this subpart: ( a ) You must use equipment and tools that are of adequate design, construction, and workmanship to enable them to be adequately cleaned and properly maintained; and
( b ) Equipment and tools must be: ( 1 ) Installed and maintained as to facilitate cleaning of the equipment and of all adjacent spaces; and
( 2 ) Stored and maintained to protect covered produce from being contaminated with known or reasonably foreseeable hazards and to prevent the equipment and tools from attracting and harboring pests.
( c ) Seams on food contact surfaces of equipment and tools that you use must be either smoothly bonded, or maintained to minimize accumulation of dirt, filth, food particles, and organic material and thus minimize the opportunity for harborage or growth of microorganisms.
( d ) ( 1 ) You must inspect, maintain, and clean and, when necessary and appropriate, sanitize all food contact surfaces of equipment and tools used in covered activities as frequently as reasonably necessary to protect against contamination of covered produce.
( 2 ) You must maintain and clean all non-food-contact surfaces of equipment and tools subject to this subpart used during harvesting, packing, and holding as frequently as reasonably necessary to protect against contamination of covered produce.
( e ) If you use equipment such as pallets, forklifts, tractors, and vehicles such that they are intended to, or likely to, contact covered produce, you must do so in a manner that minimizes the potential for contamination of covered produce or food contact surfaces with known or reasonably foreseeable hazards.
#### The State, ex rel. Colscott, *v.*Brockman, Treasurer, etc.

[No. 18,820.

Filed May 29, 1900.]

From the Union Circuit Court.

*Reversed.*

*G. O. Florea*and *L. L. Broaddus,*for appellant.

*S. S. Harrell*and *F. M. Alexander,*for appellee.

Jordan, J.

This case is a companion of State, *ex rel. Colscott,*v. *King, ante,*621, and its purpose is to enforce, by a writ of mandamus, an inspection of the public records of the treasurer’s office of Franklin county, Indiana.

The relator is the same person who prosecutes as such in the case of *State*v. *King, supra,*and the facts alleged in his petition are in all respects identical with those set forth in that case; and, upon the authority of the decision therein, it must be held that the lower court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the petition.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded to the lower court for further proceedings along the lines laid down in the appeal of *State, ex rel.,*v. *King, supra.*
This Amendment to the Domestic Factoring Agreement (the " Domestic Amendment") is entered into as of June 16, 2003 (the "Amendment Date"), by and among PACIFIC BUSINESS FUNDING, a division of Cupertino National Bank ("Purchaser"), and **Southwall Technologies**, **Inc**. ("Seller").

RECITALS

Seller and Purchaser are parties to that certain Domestic Factoring Agreement dated as of May 16, 2003 collectively (the " Domestic Agreement").  Each of the parties hereto desires to amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Amendment.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows

- Section 12, (U):  Definitions, **"Eligible Accounts" shall be eliminated for the Domestic Agreement.Schedule 1, Section 1.3, 
Reserve:  Change N/A to 30%Schedule 1, Section 2.5 
Other Fees: Eliminate everything except; "All such other fees are due upon rendering of services or the incurrence of fees, as applicable."Schedule 1, Section 5(V), (II) (a) 
Financial Reporting:  Eliminate "an income statement, statement of cash flows, balance sheets"Schedule 1, Section 7 
Grant of Security Interest In Commercial Tort Claims: Add the word "None" on the blank line.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the first date above written.
 
**"PURCHASER"**
PACIFIC BUSINESS FUNDING,

a division of Cupertino National Bank

 

By /s/ Melvin L. Robbins

Title Senior Vice President
**"SELLER"**
SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

 

By /s/ John Lipscomb

Title V.P. Corporate Controller

 **
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 24, 2011 

d1017 

Order 

 

October 24, 2011 

143333 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143333 

 COA: 303760 

Berrien CC: 2010-001562-FH; 

EDWARD KEITH DOWNEY, 2010-001563-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 3, 2011 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MEMORANDUM

TO: Portland Cement MACT Docket

FROM: Steven Silverman, Attorney OGC

RE: Telephone Call with Dick Wilson, As h Grove Cement representative Nov. 18, 2009

I talked briefly by phone with Dick W ilson on Nov. 18 responding to a question he raised. Specifically, he asked that supposing we subcategorized for high Hg limestone sources and established a beyond the floor Hg standard for sources in the subcategory, did we have discretion to promulgate an open-ended standard or must we establis h a single numerical (or percent reduction) standard. I quoted the langu age of 112 d 2 to him, and also explained the findings we would need to make in order to adopt a work practice.