alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Michael L. DeMarco, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 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 ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in 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 has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: October 10, 2007   /s/ Michael L. DeMarco   Michael L. DeMarco,  Chief Financial Officer  
24
#### § 68b.10 When can a Scholarship Program payment obligation be discharged in bankruptcy?

Any payment obligation incurred under § 68b.9 may be discharged in bankruptcy under Title 11 of the United States Code only if such discharge is granted after the expiration of the seven-year period beginning on the first date that payment is required and only if the bankruptcy court finds that a nondischarge of the obligation would be unconscionable.
Larry Greene AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12th Street, 3rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 

916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax 

www.airquality.org 

May 10, 2012 

Mr. Michael Guzzetta 

Stationary Source Division 

California Air Resources Board 

PO Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, Negative Declaration for CTG for 

Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings (U.S. EPA Publication No. 

EPA-453/R-08-006, September 2008) 

Dear Mr. Guzzetta: 

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of a revision to the State Implementation 

Plan. On March 22, 2012, the SMAQMD Board of Directors adopted a negative declaration, 

finding that there are no District sources to which the following Control Techniques Guidelines 

(CTG) document applies: 

Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. 

U.S. EPA Publication No. EPA-453/R-08-006, September 2008. 

Clean Air Act Section 182(b)(2)(A) requires states/districts to revise their SIPs to include RACT 

for sources of VOC emissions for each category of VOC sources covered by all CTG 

documents issued after November 15, 1990, and prior to the area’s date of attainment. This 

negative declaration is being submitted in lieu of a RACT rule. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.102, a notice was prominently displayed on the District’s web site, 

providing a 30-day period for the public to request a public hearing. The notice procedure is 

consistent with the U.S. EPA Office of Air and Radiation Memo to Regional Administrators, 

“Regional Consistency for the Administrative Requirements of State Implementation Plan 

Submittals and the Use of ‘Letter Notices’,” April 6, 2011. No request for a hearing was 

received during the 30-day period. Therefore, the public hearing was cancelled and the 

negative declaration was adopted. 

Please forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA. If you have any comments or 

questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. 

Program Coordinator 

(sent via e-mail) 

Attachments: 
Mr. Michael Guzzetta 

May 10, 2012 

Page 2 

1. SIP Checklist 

2. Negative Declaration for the Automobile Assembly Coating CTG 

3. Public Notice Evidence 

4. Resolution 

5. Rule Evaluation Form 

6. Staff Report
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3242 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3242

     To provide for the reporting of deaths of persons in custody.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 1996

  Mr. Hutchinson (for himself and Mr. Scott) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for the reporting of deaths of persons in custody.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Reporting Deaths in Custody Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. REPORTING OF DEATHS OF PERSONS IN CUSTODY IN JAILS.

    (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall, in such form and 
manner as the Attorney General determines, and under such regulations 
as the Attorney General shall prescribe, require that the appropriate 
public authorities report promptly to the Attorney General the death of 
each individual who dies in custody while in a municipal or county 
jail, State or Federal prison, or other similar place of confinement. 
Each such report shall include the cause of death and all other facts 
relevant to the death reported, which the person so reporting shall 
have the duty to make a good faith effort to ascertain.
    (b) Annual Report.--The Attorney General shall annually publish a 
report containing--
            (1) the number of deaths in each institution for which a 
        report was filed during the relevant reporting period;
            (2) the cause of death and time of death for each death so 
        reported; and
            (3) such other information about the death as the Attorney 
        General deems relevant.
                                 <all>
```
HomePartnership for Regional East Africa Counterterrorism (PREACT)

# 									Partnership for Regional East Africa Counterterrorism (PREACT)							

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

February 14, 2019

The Partnership for Regional East Africa Counterterrorism (PREACT) is the U.S. government’s multi-year, multi-sector initiative to build the long-term capabilities of East African partners to contain, disrupt, and marginalize terrorist networks in the region.  INL is a critical contributor to the PREACT strategy, which seeks to build strong civilian and security sector institutions, create durable capabilities, and address conditions contributing to the spread of violent extremism – efforts that are essential to enable host governments to take full ownership of the fight against terrorism.  INL’s PREACT funds empower East African criminal justice institutions to confront complex challenges posed by cross-border terrorism. INL’s active PREACT partners include Kenya, Somalia, and Tanzania.  Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Seychelles, South Sudan, Sudan, and Uganda are also members of PREACT.

Tags

AfricaCounterterrorismCrimeDrugsLaw EnforcementNarcoticsPartnerships

Back to Top
---

|**Secondary Market Report** | **July 1998**
|--------------------------- | -------------



---

### TABLE 1
Net Prices and Average Yields for HUD-Insured
New Home Mortgages (Section 203) Immediate Delivery
Transactions 30-year Maturity - Minimum Downpayment



---

``
##### 



Exhibit 32(a) 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 Interphase Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Gregory B. Kalush, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ Gregory B. KalushGregory B. KalushChief Executive OfficerNovember 12, 2004
§ 495.362 Retroactive approval of FFP with an effective date of February 18, 2009. For administrative activities performed by a State, without obtaining prior approval, which are in support of planning for incentive payments to providers, a State may request consideration of FFP by recorded request in a HIT advance planning document or implementation advance planning document update. In such a consideration, the agency takes into consideration overall Federal interests which may include any of the following: ( a ) The acquisition must not be before February 18, 2009.
( b ) The acquisition must be reasonable, useful, and necessary.
( c ) The acquisition must be attributable to payments for reasonable administrative expenses under section 1903(a)(3)(F)(ii) of the Act.
! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # !! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # "! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # $! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # %! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # &! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # '! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # (! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # )! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # !! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # "! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # $! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # %! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # &! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # '! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # (! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # ! )! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # !! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # ! !! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # ! "! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # ! #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # ! $! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # ! %! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # ! &! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # ! '! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # ! (! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # " )! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # "! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # " !! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # " "! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # " #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # " $! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # " %! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # " &! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # " '! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # " (! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # # )! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # # !! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # # "! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # # #! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # # $! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # # %! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # # &! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # # '! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # # (! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # $ )! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # $

2 3 , * ( ) 3 2 3 0

4 0 5 0

6 7 3 ) 5! " # $ & ' ( ) * + , - . / , 0 ( , ) - 1

. $ # $ !

8 3 ' 9 : ; 3 <

= & > ? < @ < = > A B C @ < ? C D @ > E > @ @ F A < = & @ F C F = = < @ B B G H = F C B C G

= & I J # I F @ K L > ? H < = < = L
= > A B C & D F M D L L B D F K & = F F N G B L > B O

O < L > = E B C < M F
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                                                    ------------

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Sidney C. Hooper, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Sutron Corporation;

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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

/s/ Sidney C. Hooper
---------------------------
Sidney C. Hooper
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Accounting Officer)

Date: November 14, 2005
#### § 6.1 Applicability.

This part applies to entities and individuals whose acts and omissions related to the performance of medical, surgical, dental, or related functions are covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 1346(b) and 2671-2680) in accordance with the provisions of section 224(g) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 233(g)).
§ 8.33 Written decision. ( a ) *Issuance of decision.* The reviewing official shall issue a written decision upholding or denying the suspension, proposed revocation, or adverse action. The decision will set forth the reasons for the decision and describe the basis for that decision in the record. Furthermore, the reviewing official may remand the matter to the respondent for such further action as the reviewing official deems appropriate.
( b ) *Date of decision.* The reviewing official will attempt to issue the decision within 15 days of the date of the oral presentation, the date on which the transcript is received, or the date of the last submission by either party, whichever is later. If there is no oral presentation, the decision will normally be issued within 15 days of the date of receipt of the last reply brief. Once issued, the reviewing official will immediately communicate the decision to each party.
( c ) *Public notice and communications to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).* ( 1 ) If the suspension and proposed revocation of OTP certification are upheld, the revocation of certification will become effective immediately and the public will be notified by publication of a notice in the Federal Register. The Secretary will notify DEA within 5 days that the OTP's registration should be revoked.
( 2 ) If the suspension and proposed revocation of OTP certification are denied, the revocation will not take effect and the suspension will be lifted immediately. Public notice will be given by publication in the Federal Register. The Secretary will notify DEA within 5 days that the OTP's registration should be restored, if applicable.
#### § 405.507 Illustrations of the application of the criteria for determining reasonable charges.

The following examples illustrate how the general criteria on customary charges and prevailing charges might be applied in determining reasonable charges under the supplementary medical insurance program. Basically, these examples demonstrate that, except where the actual charge is less, reasonable charges will reflect current customary charges of the particular physician or other person within the ranges of the current prevailing charges in the locality for that type and level of service:

The prevailing charge for a specific medical procedure ranges from $80 to $100 in a certain locality.

Doctor A's bill is for $75 although he customarily charges $80 for the procedure.

Doctor B's bill is his customary charge of $85

Doctor C's bill is his customary charge of $125

Doctor D's bill is for $100, although he customarily charges $80, and there are no special circumstances in the case.

The reasonable charge for Doctor A would be limited to $75 since under the law the reasonable charge cannot exceed the actual charge, even if it is lower than his customary charge and below the prevailing charges for the locality.

The reasonable charge for Doctor B would be $85, because it is his customary charge and it falls within the range of prevailing charges for that locality.

The reasonable charge for Doctor C could not be more than $100, the top of the range of prevailing charges.

The reasonable charge for Doctor D would be $80, because that is his customary charge. Even though his actual charge of $100 falls within the range of prevailing charges, the reasonable charge cannot exceed his customary charge in the absence of special circumstances.
41128.

#### SOUTHERN v. ADAMS.

Decided February 1, 1965

Rehearing denied February 22, 1965.

*218*William P. Holley,*for plaintiff in error.

*Edwards, Bentley, Awtrey & Parker, Scott S. Edwards, Jr., A. Sidney Parker,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

“The purpose of the Summary Judgment Act is to afford to either party litigant, upon motion, a judgment forthwith if the record shows there is not a genuine issue existing between the parties. . .” *Studstill v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co.,*101 Ga. App. 766 (2) (115 SE2d 374). Under the record here there was no genuine issue left to be determined by a jury. Both the defendant John Adams and his agent and employee Edward Skudder testified without contradiction that Skudder had neither express nor implied authority to make contracts on behalf of his master and employer John Adams. Plaintiff contends however that even if Skudder had, without authority temporarily departed from his master’s business in order to clean off plaintiff’s lot, that at the time plaintiff was injured the object of Skudder’s temporary departure from his master’s business (cleaning off plaintiff’s lot), had been accomplished and Skudder had resumed the duties of his master and that the responsibility of the master Adams for the acts of the agent and employee Skudder had then re-attached. The question and answer record in plaintiff’s own deposition as to that proposition is as follows:

“Q. Now, who supervised Skudder in telling him what to do *219and how to do it—to your lot? A. I told him what to do, what I wanted done on the lot. Q. What did you tell him to do Mr. Southern? A. I told him to level the lot out, the gravel that was on the lot, you know, to scrape it and level the lot out, fill up the holes in the lot. Q. Now, why did he tell you he had to leave? A. Well, I don’t know why he told me he had to leave. I suppose he had finished, he had done about all he could do to the lot and at that time he was ready to leave. Q. Did you talk to him about paying him at that time? A. He was to come in the office and I was going to pay him. And I though he was parking the tractor, see, and when he—I don’t know he was backing up, and that is when he hit me.”

Accordingly, where Skudder, at the time plaintiff was injured was on his way to plaintiff’s office and at plaintiff’s direction to be paid by plaintiff for the work that he had done for plaintiff, he had not at that time resumed the work of his master Adams, but rather was still in the process of concluding the business that he temporarily had undertaken on behalf of plaintiff, and for which, under these circumstances, the master Adams could not be held responsible. Unquestionably this case is controlled by the rulings in *Wilson v. Quick Tire Service,*32 Ga. App. 310, 311 (123 SE 733); *Cooley v. Tate,*87 Ga. App. 1, 6 (73 SE2d 72); *Brennan v. National NuGrape Co.,*106 Ga. App. 709 (128 SE2d 81); *Greeson v. Bailey,*167 Ga. 638 (146 SE 490).

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*