alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, Glenn A. Jackson, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Boundless Motor Sports Racing, Inc. 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 quarterly report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresas of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the“Evaluation Date”); and
c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any materialweaknesses in internal controls; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and
6.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.   Date:March 2, 2005 /s/ Glenn A. Jackson   Glenn A. Jackson, Chief Accounting Officer
#### § 25.20 [Reserved]
#### Isaac Cohen, Landlord, Respondent, *v.*Harris Suckno and Samuel Cohen, Tenants, Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

November, 1900.)

Summary proceedings — New lease by landlord, out of possession, not a defense.

A reletting of demised premises by the landlord, for a term exceeding the existing one, is not a defense to tenants'in possession, against proceedings taken to dispossess them for nonpayment of rent, for, the landlord has not possession and cannot deliver it to the new lessee and, therefore, the new lease is ineffectual.

Appeal from an order of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, dispossessing tenants.

J. Rieger, for appellants.

J. Levy, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The appellants held under a lease by which they agreed to pay their rent monthly on the fifteenth day of each month. The lease, their possession under it, the refusal to pay the rent which accrued on July 15, 1899, and a demand are all admitted. The defense is that, on June 28, 1899, the landlord *690had executed a lease of the premises to Mr. Thorn. This lease was marked in evidence, but is not attached to the return, and its terms do not appear. It is stated, however, in the appellants’ brief that the lease purported to demise the premises to Thorn for a period longer than a year, commencing on the 1st day of July, 1899, the month for the nonpayment of the rent of which this proceeding was instituted, and, for the purposes of this appeal, this statement will be accepted. It is not alleged and does not appear that Thorn ever demanded possession of the premises, or that the defendants ever attorned to him or recognized him as entitled either to possession or rent. However perfect and formal the lease to Thorn may have been so far as concerns its form and manner of execution, it was ineffective as a lease, unless the lessor was in possession of the premises, or at least in a position to give Thorn possession, for it is essential to the validity of a 'lease that the lessor shall be in possession of the premises. Here the landlord was not in possession, and could not deliver possession. The appellants held possession under an agreement which was inconsistent with such a lease as was attempted to be made to Thorn, and in this sense and to this extent held adversely to the landlord. That is to say, so long as the lease to these appellants remained in force and they remained in possession under it, the landlord could not make a valid, effectual lease to Thorn or anyone else. It follows that the landlord never lost, and Thorn never acquired, the right to institute these summary proceedings, and the order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Truax, P. J.; Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Order affirmed, with costs.
# Clean Power Plan

Curt Spalding 

# August 6, 2014 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1

# The Clean Power Plan Proposal Addresses the Largest Source of Green House Gas Emissions in the U.S.

2

# States and Communities with

Programs That Reduce Carbon Pollution

State programs that reduce carbon include carbon cap and trade programs and energy efficiency and renewable energy standards or goals. 38/5/2014 22% 12%

-20%

-71%

-93% -100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

New England GDP Total Generation CO2 Emissions NOx Emissions SO2 Emissions Data Sources: 2012 ISO New England Electric Generator Air Emissions Report, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 

# New England Economic Growth and ISO New England System Emissions

# Comment Period and Public Involvement

• The proposed rule, as well as information about how to 

# comment and supporting technical information, are available online at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan 

# • EPA held 4 public hearings the week of July 28 th 

# in Denver , Atlanta , Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C. 

# • There will be a 120- day public comment period on the proposal. 

# • Comments on the proposal should be identified by Docket ID No. 5
# C_2008275EN.01002001.xml

| 30.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/20

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 8 July 2008

in Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07 between L'Oréal Norge AS (Case E-9/07 and Case E-10/07); L'Oréal SA (Case E-10/07) and Per Aarskog AS (Case E-9/07); Nille AS (Case E-9/07); Smart Club AS (Case E-10/07)

(Exhaustion of trade mark rights)

(Exhaustion of trade mark rights)

(2008/C 275/09)

In Joined Cases E-9/07 and E-10/07, between L'Oréal Norge AS and L'Oréal SA on one hand, and Per Aarskog AS, Nille AS and Smart Club AS on the other — Requests to the Court by Follo tingrett (Follo District Court) and Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), concerning the interpretation of the First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC), the Court, composed of Thorgeir Örlygsson, Acting President, Henrik Bull, Judge-Rapporteur and Martin Ospelt (ad hoc), Judge, gave judgment on 8 July 2008, the operative part of which is as follows:

ad hoc

| | Article 7(1) of First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC) is to be interpreted to the effect that it precludes the unilateral introduction or maintenance of international exhaustion of rights conferred by a trade mark regardless of the origin of the goods in question. |
| --- | --- |

Article 7(1) of First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC) is to be interpreted to the effect that it precludes the unilateral introduction or maintenance of international exhaustion of rights conferred by a trade mark regardless of the origin of the goods in question.

Article 7(1) of First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC) is to be interpreted to the effect that it precludes the unilateral introduction or maintenance of international exhaustion of rights conferred by a trade mark regardless of the origin of the goods in question.

---
# C_2018335EN.01002001.xml

| 20.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/20

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 30 May 2018

in Case E-9/17

Edmund Falkenhahn AG v The Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht)

(Directive 2009/110/EC — Electronic money institutions — Redemption at par value — Safeguarding requirements)

(2018/C 335/12)

In Case E-9/17, Edmund Falkenhahn AG v The Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht) — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Liechtenstein Appeals Board of the Financial Market Authority (Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Martin Ospelt (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 30 May 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | It is incompatible with Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC if electronic money has a value different from par value on the receipt of funds at any time, including during the period between issuance and redemption. |
| --- | --- |

1.

It is incompatible with Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2009/110/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on the taking up, pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions amending Directives 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 2000/46/EC if electronic money has a value different from par value on the receipt of funds at any time, including during the period between issuance and redemption.

| 2. | The first and second subparagraphs of Article 7(2) of Directive 2009/110/EC, read in conjunction with Table 1 of point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions, define exhaustively what assets constitute secure, low-risk assets for the purposes of Article 7(1) of Directive 2009/110/EC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The first and second subparagraphs of Article 7(2) of Directive 2009/110/EC, read in conjunction with Table 1 of point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2006/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions, define exhaustively what assets constitute secure, low-risk assets for the purposes of Article 7(1) of Directive 2009/110/EC.

---
1 

### Nemecek, Monica (FAA)

From: Nemecek, Monica (FAA)

Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 8:12 AM

To: 'William E. Taylor'; Michalik, Gregory (FAA); Timothy.Smythe@faa.gov; Malekpour,

Shawn (FAA); Hanley, Brian (FAA)

Cc: Tanya Tuinstra; Tracy Biegler; Fred Begy (fbegy@fredbegylaw.com); 9-AGL-CHI-ACOCOS (FAA)

Subject: RE: EAD Revision

Hi Bill,

The numbers were added in to the preamble after th e worksheet left the ACO, but were reviewed by

the ACO before publication. My understanding is that the numbers came from the population that

was included in the Weibull analysis. But you are correct in pointing out that there were additional

inspections that were not included there. I can assure you there was no intent to exaggerate the

percentage. We will talk internally to see what we can do to address your concern.

Best Regards,



### Monica L. Nemecek

Continued Operational Safety

Program Manager

Chicago Aircraft Certification Office

847-294-7618

From: William E. Taylor [ mailto:wtaylor@enstromhelicopter.com ]

Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:08 PM

To: Nemecek, Monica (FAA); Michalik, Gregory (FAA); Timothy.Smythe@faa.gov ; Malekpour, Shawn (FAA)

Cc: Tanya Tuinstra; Tracy Biegler; Fred Begy ( fbegy@fredbegylaw.com )

Subject: EAD Revision

Monica:

I just read through the EAD revision, and I’m a little disappointed. The preamble to the EAD states “Since we issued EAD

2015

‐ 04

‐ 51, inspection reports received by the FAA indicate approximately 20% of the spindles have evidence of

cracks.” In our conversations with Greg, we understood that Enstrom and the FAA would share data. Based on the data

that we provided to the FAA, and which Greg said included all the spindle data he had, we received notification of 11

cracked spindles out 121 inspections. By my calculations, that is 7.4%. If you include the spindles from Colorado

(inspected before the release of the EAD), the numbers become 14 cracked spindles out of 124 inspections, or 11.2%.

Neither 7.4% nor 11.2% is what I would call “approximately 20%.” We have operators who are concerned by the very

fact the FAA issued an EAD. I do not see what exaggerating the percentage of cracked spindles does to further the cause

of aviation safety.

I’m wondering what happened when Enstrom provided all our data in good faith, and then the AD comes out with this

type of inaccuracy. Would you please explain why the FAA chose to take this approach?

Bill2 

### William E. Taylor

Senior Technical Fellow

Enstrom Helicopter Corporation

906-863-1200 Ext. 115

920-371-1060 (Cell)

Fax: 906-863-6821

The information contained in this transmission is proprietary and is intended solely for the use of the individuals or organiza tions to whom it was addressed. If you

have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender and delete it.
#### § 268.703 Notice.

The Board shall make available to employees, applicants for employment, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons information regarding the provisions of this subpart and its applicability to the programs and activities conducted by the Board, and make this information available to them in such manner as the Board finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by this subpart.
# C_2016374EN.01000401.xml

| 13.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/4

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2016/C 374/04)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 25 May 2016 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 78958 |
| Decision No | : | 125/16/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Region | : | Municipality of Kristiansand |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Individual aid in favour of Glencore Nikkelverk AS for the construction of a demonstration plant |
| Legal basis | : | The Energy Fund scheme approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority by Decision No 248/11/COL |
| Type of measure | : | Individual aid under the Energy Fund scheme, subject to a detailed assessment |
| Objective | : | Environment and innovation |
| Form of aid | : | Grant |
| Budget | : | NOK 380 000 000 |
| Intensity | : | 44,3 % |
| Duration | : | Aid will be distributed in the period 2016-2021 |
| Economic sectors | : | Copper production |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Enova SF |
| Professor Brochs gate. 2 |
| N-7030 Trondheim |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

25 May 2016

Case No

Case No

:

78958

Decision No

Decision No

:

125/16/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Region

Region

:

Municipality of Kristiansand

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Individual aid in favour of Glencore Nikkelverk AS for the construction of a demonstration plant

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

The Energy Fund scheme approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority by Decision No 248/11/COL

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Individual aid under the Energy Fund scheme, subject to a detailed assessment

Objective

Objective

:

Environment and innovation

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Grant

Budget

Budget

:

NOK 380 000 000

Intensity

Intensity

:

44,3 %

Duration

Duration

:

Aid will be distributed in the period 2016-2021

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Copper production

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Enova SF

Professor Brochs gate. 2

N-7030 Trondheim

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 249

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 79 FR 61539, Oct. 10, 2014.

#### § 249.103 Calculation of available stable funding amount.

A Board-regulated institution's ASF amount equals the sum of the carrying values of the Board-regulated institution's NSFR regulatory capital elements and NSFR liabilities, in each case multiplied by the ASF factor applicable in § 249.104 or § 249.107(c) and consolidated in accordance with § 249.109.
42765.

#### MORRIS v. THE STATE.

*Bell, P. J., Pannell and Joslin, JJ., concur.*

Submitted May 1, 1958

Decided May 8, 1967.

*Oscar H. Allen,*for appellant.

*George Hains, Solicitor General,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

1. Under Sec. 6 of the Appellate Practice Act (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 21, as amended; *Code Ann.*§ 6-804), a trial court has no jurisdiction to grant an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal where application for an extension is not made before expiration of the 30-day period prescribed by Sec. 5 of the Act *(Code Ann.*§ 6-803).

2. The notice of appeal in this case having been filed more than 30 days after entry of the judgment appealed from and no valid extension of time having been granted pursuant to Sec. 6 of the Act, this court is without jurisdiction. *Stanford v. Evans, Reed & Williams,*221 Ga. 331 (145 SE2d 504); *Smith v. Smith,*113 Ga. App. 111 (3) (147 SE2d 466); *Lanier v. Fuller,*113 Ga. App. 234 (147 SE2d 875); *Seaton v. Redisco, Inc.,*113 Ga. App. 256 (1) (147 SE2d 828).

*Appeal dismissed.*
# C_2018414EN.01000601.xml

| 15.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 June 2018

in Case E-11/17

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/61/EU)

(2018/C 414/08)

In Case E-11/17, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31d, 31eb and 31i of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement that Act within the time prescribed, and/or by failing to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the measures it has adopted to implement that Act, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 14 June 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31d, 31eb and 31i of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at points 30, 31bb, 31d, 31eb and 31i of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---