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

 

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Thomas J. Mulroney certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Provena Foods Inc. (the “Company”); 

 

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 tomake 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and l5d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the Company and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the Company, including any subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles; 

 

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the Company’s 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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theCompany’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors: 

 

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 Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 13, 2005
<PAGE>   1
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549


                                    FORM 8-K
                                 CURRENT REPORT


                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934



         Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) July 21, 1998

                              THE LOEWEN GROUP INC.
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



<TABLE>
<S>                                <C>                    <C>
  British Columbia, Canada               0-1842                      98-0121376
----------------------------       ----------------       ---------------------------------
(State or other jurisdiction       (Commission File       (IRS Employer Identification No.)
       incorporation)                   Number)
</TABLE>




     4126 Norland Avenue, Burnaby, British Columbia        V5G 3S8
     --------------------------------------------------------------
        (Address of principal executive offices)          (zip code)



Registrant's telephone number, including area code      604-299-9321
                                                        ------------


                                       N/A
          -------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)


                                                      Exhibit Index is on page 3
                                                                     Page 1 of 5


<PAGE>   2
ITEM 5.   OTHER EVENTS.

Pursuant to Form 8-K, General Instructions F, registrant hereby incorporates by
reference the press release attached hereto as Exhibit 99.


ITEM 7.   FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
          Exhibit No.         Description
          -----------         -----------
<S>                           <C>
          Exhibit 99          The Loewen Group Inc. Press Release dated July 21, 1998
</TABLE>


                                   SIGNATURES

          Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

Dated: July 22, 1998

                              THE LOEWEN GROUP INC.



                              By:  /s/ BRADLEY D. STAM
                                 -------------------------------
                              Name: Bradley D. Stam
                              Title: Senior Vice President, Law


<PAGE>   3
                                  EXHIBIT INDEX



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Sequential
Number    Exhibit                                      Page Number
------    -------                                      -----------
<S>       <C>                                          <C>
99        The Loewen Group Inc.                                  4
          Press Release dated July 21, 1998
</TABLE>
Contact:      Fred R. Sullivan
                                                            Cornelius F. Griffin
                                                            212-751-1445

                RICHTON ANNOUNCES EXCHANGE RATIO FOR DEERE STOCK
                ------------------------------------------------

      NEW YORK, N.Y., October 1, 2001 - The Exchange Ratio for Richton
      International Corporation (AMEX: "RHT") anticipated merger transaction
      with Deere & Company (NYSE:"DE") has been fixed at .9697. Thus, .9697 of a
      share of Deere common stock will be issued for each share of Richton
      common stock for which an election to receive Deere common stock has been
      made. The Exchange Ratio was based on the average closing sales price per
      share of DE common stock for the ten (10) trading days from September 17,
      2001 through September 28, 2001, pursuant to the terms of the Merger
      Agreement dated May 29, 2001.

      The Merger Agreement is subject to shareholder approval, which meeting has
      been scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 2, 2001.

      RHT is a diversified service company with three companies in two
      businesses. Century Supply Corporation, is a wholesale distributor of
      irrigation products and systems. CBE Technologies Inc. and Creative
      Business Concepts are both value-added resellers of computer and systems
      integration products and providers of networking and consulting services.

      DE and RHT have filed a proxy statement/prospectus and other relevant
      documents concerning the proposed transaction with the SEC. INVESTORS ARE
      URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT
      DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON
      THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION. Investors can obtain the documents free of
      charge at the SEC's website (www.sec.gov). In addition, documents filed
      with the SEC by DE or RHT with respect to the proposed transaction may be
      obtained free of charge by RHT stockholders by contacting Richton
      International Corporation, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10153,
      Attention: Cornelius F. Griffin (tel.: 212-751-1445). INVESTORS SHOULD
      READ THE PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING ANY VOTING OR
      INVESTMENT DECISION.
[No. 20849-1-II.

Division Two.

December 12, 1997.]

#### Kathryn W. Norris, et al., *Appellants,*v. The Department of Retirement Systems, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Thurston County, No. 93-2-02639-8, Christine A. Pomeroy, J., entered June 4,1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Armstrong, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             630
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         150,219
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    111,376
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        899,745
<ALLOWANCE>                                     11,912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,365,754
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,001,476
<SHORT-TERM>                                   110,304
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             28,673
<LONG-TERM>                                     64,483
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     160,518
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,365,754
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                157,458
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               11,723
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               169,181
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              57,980
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,856
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          101,325
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,410
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 22,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 93,042
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      93,042
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   288.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   288.78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.86
<LOANS-NON>                                    112,994
<LOANS-PAST>                                    16,938
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,189
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,956
<RECOVERIES>                                       269
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               11,912
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            11,897
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 15
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### P. J. KRUMHOLZ v. WILLIAM DAWSON AND OTHERS. DAVID C. JOHNSON, APPELLANT.1

November 9, 1923.

No. 23,563.

Vendor bound by mechanics’ liens.

Finding that vendor knew of improvements made by vendee in possession and was liable for the mechanics’ liens filed against the premises, sustained upon meagre evidence. [Reporter.]

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to foreclose mechanics’ liens. The case was tried before' Salmon, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of the lien claimants and directing a sale of the premises to satisfy the liens. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, David G. Johnson appealed.

Affirmed.

• *E. Luther Melin,*for appellant.

*J. J. Segall, George M. Bleecher, O. S. Brecke*and *N. L. Erieson,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 195 N. W. 639.

*505PER CURIAM.

Defendant Johnson and defendant William Dawson entered into an exe-cutory contract on September 20, 1921, whereby Johnson agreed to convey to Dawson a house and lot in North Minneapolis on being paid the sum of $3,000, and Dawson agreed to pay that sum therefor in monthly instal-ments of $30 each. Dawson took possession of the premises October 1, 1921. The house was old and in need of repair, and Dawson proceeded at once to make quite extensive repairs and improvements. He failed to pay for either the labor or material furnished therefor and mechanics’ liens were filed against the property. He paid only 3 of the monthly instalments on his contract of purchase and removed from the premises in the spring of 1922. Johnson terminated the contract by giving the statutory notice in December, 1922.

This is an appeal by Johnson from a judgment foreclosing the mechanics’ liens and directing that the property be sold to satisfy them. The liens were not disputed, but Johnson asserted that he had no notice or knowledge of the making of the improvements until after they had been completed, and that the liens did not attach to his interest in the property for that reason, although he had failed to give the statutory notice that they were not made at his instance. The trial court found, in effect, that the repairs and improvements were made with his knowledge, and the question presented is whether this finding is sustained by the evidence. The evidence in support of it is meagre and not very satisfactory, but we are unable to say that the court could not legitimately infer from it that Johnson understood and knew that the improvements were to be made.

Judgment affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY OFFICE OF POLLUTION PREVENTION AND TOXICS REGULATION OF NEW CHEMICAL SUBSTANCE PENDINGDEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION



### In the matter of:

Konarka Technologies, Inc. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Premanufacture Notice Number:

P-09-416

Consent OrderModification

### CONSENT ORDERMODIFICATION FORP-09- 416 Page 6, paragraph (d)(2), ofthe Consent Order for P09-416, effective onNovember 1,2010 (','original Order"), is hereby moditled as indicated in the attached page. All othertenns and conditions ofthe original Order remain unchanged. The modified Consent Order will not become effective until a signed copy is received by EPA, EPA 

### will confIrm receipt by telephone,

Datr 

### 7 Director Chemical Control Division Office ofPollutionPrevention and Toxics

Name: David Waller Title: DirectorofMaterials and Chemistry Company: Konarka Technologies, Inc.MODIFIED CONSENT ORDER REQUIREMENTS FOR P09- 0416 Page 6, paragraph (d)(2), ofthe original order is modified as follows: (2) Physical/chemical properties, lEthe Company 0"\11S orcontrols any site inthe United States where the PMN substance is processed orused, the Company must submit the following materia! characterization datawithin 6 months (except for the
water solubility test that must be submitted by July 5, 2011, and a waiver for conducting the dustiness test) afterthe expiration ofthe PMNreview period: Water solubility (OECD 105 test method); Surface chemistry: EELS (electron energy loss spectroscopy) and/or XPS (ESCA) (X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy/electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis), functionalized probe AFM (atomic force microscopy), or Auger electron spectroscopy; and Particle size distributionthat includes both individual PMN substance and their agglomerates as used inthe workplace at sites controlled by the Company where the PMN substance are processed or used: TEM (transmission electron microscope), SEM (scanning electronmicroscope) using a dry particle counting method, and no counting after dispersion in a solution and evaporating solvent Description ofthe physical-chemical properties ofthe material tested should take into consideration the characterizations identified in the Guidance Mannal for the Testing of ManufacturedNanomaterials: OECD's Sponsorship Programme,
Exhibit
15.2
 
 
 To the
Partners of Icahn
Enterprises L.P.
 
 We are
aware of the inclusion in Icahn Enterprises L.P.’s Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010 and the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-143930 and 333-158705 and Form S-4 No. 133-166139)
of Icahn Enterprises L.P. of our report dated July 29, 2010 relating to the
unaudited consolidated interim financial statements of Federal-Mogul Corporation
that are included in Federal-Mogul Corporation’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
 
 /s/ Ernst
and Young LLP
 
 Detroit,
Michigan
 August 4,
2010
#### § 226.115 Complaint files.

Records shall be maintained for a period of 2 years of all written or verbal complaints concerning the safety or efficacy of each Type A medicated article(s). Complaints shall be evaluated by competent and responsible personnel and, where indicated, appropriate action shall be taken. The record shall indicate the evaluation and the action.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

RICARDO JOSE CALDERON-LOPEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 19-cv-1851 (KBJ)

)

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

1

)

)

)

Defendant. )

)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey’s Report and 

Recommendation (ECF No. 23) is ADOPTED in its entirety. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) is 

GRANTED. 

DATE: May 25, 2021 Ketanji Brown Jackson

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

United States District Judge

1 Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Andrew M. Saul, who currently serves 

as the Commissioner of Social Security, will be substituted for the prior Acting Commissioner, Nancy 

A. Berryhill.
§ 520.2220f Sulfadimethoxine and ormetoprim tablet. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains 120 milligrams (mg) (100 mg sulfadimethoxine and 20 mg ormetoprim), 240 mg (200 mg sulfadimethoxine and 40 mg ormetoprim), 600 mg (500 mg sulfadimethoxine and 100 mg ormetoprim), or 1200 mg (1000 mg sulfadimethoxine and 200 mg ormetoprim).
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* On the first day of treatment, administer 25 mg per pound (55 mg per kilogram) of body weight. Then follow with a daily dosage of 12.5 mg per pound (27.5 mg per kilogram) of body weight. Do not exceed a total of 21 consecutive days.
( 2 ) *Indications of use.* Treatment of skin and soft tissue infections (wounds and abscesses) in dogs caused by strains of *Staphylococcus aureus* and *Escherichia coli* and urinary tract infections caused by *E. coli, Staphylococcus* spp., and *Proteus mirabilus* susceptible to ormetoprim-potentiated sulfadimethoxine.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[79 FR 28830, May 20, 2014]
# C_2014102EN.01002601.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/26

---

Appeal brought on 13 February 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2013 in Case T-117/12 ANKO v Commission

(Case C-78/14 P)

2014/C 102/36

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B. Conte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court;

| — | order the respondent to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the respondent to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Commission concluded, with two separate consortiums of which the respondent ΑΝΚΟ was a member, agreements for the granting of funding for the ‘OASIS’ and ‘PERFORM’ projects within the framework of the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities.

In the context of the agreement at issue, the Commission claims that the General Court misinterpreted the general terms of the agreement and in particular paragraph (3)(d) of Section II.5 (and incidentally Section ΙΙ.14, second subparagraph of paragraph (1)).

The misinterpretation of the general terms of the agreement can be broken down into the following particular grounds of appeal:

| 1. | An erroneous assessment of the serious and systematic nature of the irregularities as a ground for suspension; |
| --- | --- |

1.

An erroneous assessment of the serious and systematic nature of the irregularities as a ground for suspension;

| 2. | An erroneous assessment of the possibility/risk of repetition of the irregularities; |
| --- | --- |

2.

An erroneous assessment of the possibility/risk of repetition of the irregularities;

| 3. | An erroneous inference from the ad hoc adjustment; |
| --- | --- |

3.

An erroneous inference from the ad hoc adjustment;

| 4. | Misinterpretation of the option to use average costs and erroneous extension to use of fictitious costs — distortion of the evidence; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Misinterpretation of the option to use average costs and erroneous extension to use of fictitious costs — distortion of the evidence;

| 5. | Confusion of the criteria for suspension (suspicion) and the criteria for eligibility (certainty). |
| --- | --- |

5.

Confusion of the criteria for suspension (suspicion) and the criteria for eligibility (certainty).

---