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

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Joseph Zumwalt, certify that:

 

1.       I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 of Weida Communications, Inc.

 

2.       Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary 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 my knowledge, the condensedconsolidated financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report.

 

4.       The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

5.       The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: March 22, 2005 |   |
|----------------------|--------|
|                 |   | /s/ Joseph Zumwalt |   |
|                 |   | **Joseph Zumwalt  Chief Financial Officer** |   |

 

----
U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Office of Adjudication September 28,2016 VIAU.S. MAIL and FAX Casey E. Gardner, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration EnforcementDivision, AGC-300 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20591 800 Independence Ave., S.W, Rm 323 Washington, D.C. 20591

ToddEmerson, Esq. Sky WestAirlines 444 S. River Road St. George, UT 84790

Re: Sky West Airlines, Inc., FDMS Nos. FAA-2013-0292; FAA-2012-0777; FAA-2012- 0868; FAA-2012-0869; FAA-2012-0872; FAA-2012-0873; FAA-2012-0874; FAA-2012-0904; FAA-2013-0617; FAA-2013-0619 DearMs. Gardner and Mr. Emerson: On September 22, 2016, you filed a fifthjoint motion to hold decisions in abeyance pending the outcome of settlement negotiations. You explained that "the parties are diligently pursuing settlement of these cases" through "continuing and ongoing" discussions. As a result, you requested that the Administratornot issue any decisions regarding the referenced cases on appeal pending the outcome ofthese negotiations and further motionbythe parties. In light ofthis latest motion, the Administrator will not issue any decisions in these cases for 60 calendar days from the date ofthis letter, oruntil negotiations are concluded, whichever comes first.. Please continue to update the Hearing Docket Clerkregarding any developments.

Director and Administrative Judge
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE03544

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
|     |
|-----|
|     |  |  |
| (1) |   | I am the Chief Executive Officer of Ebix, Inc. (the “Registrant”). |
| (2) |   | In connection with the amended Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),  I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   |   | the Report containing financial statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|   |   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented. |

|           |
|-----------|
|           |  |  |
| By:  | /s/ Robin Raina |   |
|      | Name: Robin Raina |   |
|      | Chief Executive Officer |   |
# C_2014245EN.01002301.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/23

---

Action brought on 8 May 2014 — Novomatic v OHIM — Granini France (HOT JOKER)

(Case T-326/14)

2014/C 245/31

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. M. Mosing, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Granini France (Macon, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 6 February 2014 in Case R 589/2013-2, with the consequence that the opposition is rejected and the Community trade mark No 9 594 458 is registered as applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 6 February 2014 in Case R 589/2013-2, with the consequence that the opposition is rejected and the Community trade mark No 9 594 458 is registered as applied for;

| — | order that the defendant and — in case it intervenes in writing — the other party to the proceedings with OHIM have to bear their own costs and have to compensate the costs incurred by the Plaintiff in the proceeding in front of the General Court and in the appeal proceeding with OHIM |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the defendant and — in case it intervenes in writing — the other party to the proceedings with OHIM have to bear their own costs and have to compensate the costs incurred by the Plaintiff in the proceeding in front of the General Court and in the appeal proceeding with OHIM

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘HOT JOKER’ for goods in Classes 9 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 594 458

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Granini France

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘joker +’ for goods in Classes 28 and 41

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; infringement of Article 75 ff. of Regulation No 207/2009; infringement of OHIM’s duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union Law.

Pleas in law:

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 37268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18070]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, July 28, 
2009 at 3 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(10), permit consideration 
of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Walter, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session, and determined that 
no earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 
July 28, 2009 will be:

A litigation matter; and
Consideration of amicus participation.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: July 24, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18070 Filed 7-24-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
#### § 1.28-0 Credit for clinical testing expenses for certain drugs for rare diseases or conditions; table of contents.

In order to facilitate use of § 1.28-1, this section lists the paragraphs, subparagraphs, and subdivisions contained in § 1.28-1.

(a) General rule.

(b) Qualified clinical testing expenses.

(1) In general.

(2) Modification of section 41(b).

(3) Exclusion for amounts funded by another person.

(i) In general.

(ii) Clinical testing in which taxpayer retains no rights.

(iii) Clinical testing in which taxpayer retains substantial rights.

(A) In general.

(B) Drug by drug determination.

(iv) Funding for qualified clinical testing expenses determinable only in subsequent taxable years.

(4) Special rule governing the application of section 41(b) beyond its expiration date.

(c) Clinical testing.

(1) In general.

(2) Definition of “human clinical testing”.

(3) Definition of “carried out under” section 505(i).

(d) Definition and special rules.

(1) Definition of “rare disease or condition”.

(i) In general.

(ii) Cost of developing and making available the designated drug.

(A) In general.

(B) Exclusion of costs funded by another person.

(C) Computation of cost.

(D) Allocation of common costs. Costs for developing and making available the designated drug for both the disease or condition for which it is designated and one or more other diseases or conditions.

(iii) Recovery from sales.

(iv) Recordkeeping requirements.

(2) Tax liability limitation.

(i) Taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986.

(ii) Taxable years beginning before January 1, 1987, and after December 31, 1983.

(iii) Taxable years beginning before January 1, 1984.

(3) Special limitations on foreign testing.

(i) Clinical testing conducted outside the United States—In general.

(ii) Insufficient testing population in the United States.

(A) In general.

(B) “Insufficient testing population”.

(C) “Unrelated to the taxpayer”.

(4) Special limitations for certain corporations.

(i) Corporations to which section 936 applies.

(ii) Corporations to which section 934(b) applies.

(5) Aggregation of expenditures.

(i) Controlled group of corporations: organizations under common control.

(A) In general.

(B) Definition of controlled group of corporations.

(C) Definition of organization.

(D) Determination of common control.

(ii) Tax accounting periods used.

(A) In general.

(B) Special rule where the timing of clinical testing is manipulated.

(iii) Membership during taxable year in more than one group.

(iv) Intra-group transactions.

(A) In general.

(B) In-house research expenses.

(C) Contract research expenses.

(D) Lease payments.

(E) Payments for supplies.

(6) Allocations.

(i) Pass-through in the case of an S corporation

(ii) Pass-through in the case of an estate or a trust.

(iii) Pass-through in the case of a partnership.

(A) In general.

(B) Certain partnership non-business expenditures.

(C) Apportionment.

(iv) Year in which taken into account.

(v) Credit allowed subject to limitation.

(7) Manner of making an election.

[T.D. 8232, 53 FR 38710, Oct. 3, 1988; 53 FR 40879, Oct. 19, 1988]
.’ 

; 

._.... * ; 

._. . 

i- \’ 

, 

Qfter a oonelderatlon ai the rq@iGk∈ ths 

arldolss OF lnoorporrltlon and .tho nature of the aonet~uc-: 

t.io!l all4 O~erTatioR OF t.119 plant, will you pleaeo f.?for.a 

xm whsthm, $n pour op%niozi, the oyertition 0:: auoh co+ 

oern in the stota of Tcvas would bo In violation ot the 

tcrfi5 or the 6tmto 0c ch0 mte of Toxss regiitating 

an& aontr0lU.n~ truots and m0nopo3.l6s.~ 

glvven us br the attvP&ors for tho qoqx~~+, St appeare that the . 

geches liutanc Zmduots Cozpany has bea or&enizod et the tiet3aoo . 

i$ tho PeCeral Coverrant, a5 a aon-profit c.rporation.whiGh.fe 

to supervise anQ a;anrrgo tha zwiui'aoturc OF 6ynthobSo rubber 63&ntic41 for the n~t~orr's wax am?.% l 

At; the'rogkt or thO PeFollcxal Ciovox&neat.tho oto& 

omom~hip of fho Uechcn Dutene PrMuots Conlpan& ha& bea apporfive OS.1 oGq.peniel3 eJlu!serntaa in your lettoT 

(l} bsocusa it is antiok,ostob that the rax 

inso the m6nuf6Otuse afthe ayflthatic zubb6r' . 

1s to ba aupplloii froa the oiz refineries of thee0 poqwnlos 

and (2) beoaws the30 saw3 &xupanieo nre to farnP3h ikos wong 

thclr 6i~ployOes the poroaa-,Glvith the nooostrary dhcmlcal, . 

OqjiRaOriRp; &nd ol;har I;oChuloaa. Bkfil enb trainin$j I% dircottig 

tbb pPopoaea llRdcirtnkln~. The cultire projeot $6 t&&lctti?a by 

and Qhall be opt?rstGa unaez. ttso (ttreot -.suposvlslcu¶ alla OontYol 

,of PeiIaral agenaida fn tui%heraticit of ooeential waz wrjc. Unitsr .' 

cuch Gi~ourzit3nccs, x76 QTQ OP the opiaion i&It wle Gnti-truat. 

l%?e Of Taxas h3ve no eppliarrtion tq the gropowI ogOzet1one .' 

of the'E6chas But6nq produote company, RG outlina8. 

Your5 vepy t%w.y .
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 275 ) ll-K - 

# Qf

y - Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:58AM Sheet 275 of 325P. 2
*-* * -? ?ry\ II-K-(A)- 7

IFCA M PROJECTION S O F NE W INDUSTRIA L BOILE R COA L DEMAN D EEA , Inc . Jun e 15 , 198 3 THI S INFORMATIO NCA

NB E FOUN D I

NDOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE M II-K-(A)- 7
#### § 1.1442-2 Exemption under a tax treaty.

For regulations providing for a claim of reduced withholding tax under section 1442 by certain foreign corporations pursuant to the provisions of an income tax treaty, see § 1.1441-6.

[T.D. 8734, 62 FR 53466, Oct. 14, 1997]
# C_2014151EN.01002901.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/29

---

Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Nürburgring v OHIM — Biedermann (Nordschleife)

(Case T-181/14)

2014/C 151/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nürburgring GmbH (Nürburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lutz Biedermann (Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2014 in Case R 163/2013-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2014 in Case R 163/2013-4;

| — | order the defendant and, if applicable, the other interested parties to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant and, if applicable, the other interested parties to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Nordschleife’ for goods and services in Classes 2 to 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24 to 30, 32 to 34, 39, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 7 379 399

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lutz Biedermann

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Management by Nordschleife’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 16, 25, 28 and 41

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
FOCUS (2/2/2004) INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page #1 CBI: No ID Number: P-04-0244 ENGINEER: Prothero \ JB PV (kg/yr): SUBMITTER: USE: chemical intermediate
OTHER USES:

MSDS: No Label: No Gen Eqpt: Chemical safety glasses with side shields or goggles, chemical resistant gloves, Use local exhaust to minimize misting and vapor, and mechanical ventilation for general area control. Respirator: Wear a NIOSH/MSHA approved organic/acid gas cartridge respirator if misting or vapor occurs. Health Effects: May be harmful by inhalation, ingestion or skin absorption. Causes mucous membrane and upper respiratory tract irritation. Causes skin and eye irritation. CRSS (1/20/2004):Chemical Name: Ethane, 2-bromo-1,1-difluoroS-H20: 1.1 g/L @ VP: 233.0000000000 torr @ MW: 144.95 Phys State: NEAT: liquid; MFG: liquid; PROC/FORM: NA; END USE: destroyed.
Consumer Use: SAT (1/21/2004): Migration to groundwater: rapid PBT rating: P1B1T2 Health: 2 (dermal, inhalation, drinking water) Eco: 1 (no releases to water)FOCUS (2/2/2004) INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page #2 CBI: No ID Number: P-04-0244

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2
NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: IRER generated by ChemSTEER ver 7/24/03. The vapor pressure for the PMN was above 35 torr (vapor model limits), therefore, the CFC substitutes generic scenario was used.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:
EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: NoFOCUS (2/2/2004) INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page #3 CBI: No ID Number: P-04-0244

Number of Sites: Days/yr:

Process Description:
ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARYFOCUS (2/2/2004) INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page #4 CBI: No ID Number: P-04-0244

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Inhalation:
Dermal:FOCUS (2/2/2004) INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page #5 CBI: No ID Number: P-04-0244

Number of Sites: Days/yr: Process Description:
ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARYFOCUS (2/2/2004) INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page #4 CBI: No ID Number: P-04-0244

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Inhalation: Dermal:
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

J.P.Morgan Chase CommercialMortgage Securities Corp. 

383 Madison Avenue

31st Floor

New York, New York 10179

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-C30, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C30

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of July 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1002** 

TERRENCE ANTHONY WRAY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

PORTIA CATRELL WRAY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:11

- cv
- 03443

- RBH )

Submitted : April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Terrence Anthony Wray , Appellant Pro Se. Portia Catrell Wray , Appellee Pro Se

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Terrence Anthony Wray appeals the district court ’ s
order dismissing his civil action for failure to prosecute . We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wray v.
Wray , No. 4:11

- cv
- 03443

- RBH (D.S.C. Dec. 21, 2 012)

. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED