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



CERTIFICATION



I, William J. McEntee, Jr., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Interep National Radio Sales, Inc.;



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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant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 registrant 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 registrant, 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) (Intentionally omitted)



c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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



d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrant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 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 who have a significant
role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.



|                        |  |                                                                          
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 15, 2004 |  | /s/    WILLIAM J. MCENTEE,
JR.                                           
|                        |  | William J. McEntee, Jr. Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
§ 13.211 Service of documents. ( a ) *General.* A person must serve a copy of all documents on each party and the administrative law judge, if assigned, at the time of filing with the FAA Hearing Docket except as provided otherwise in this subpart.
( b ) *Service by the FAA Hearing Docket, the administrative law judge, and the FAA decisionmaker.* The FAA Hearing Docket, the administrative law judge, and the FAA decisionmaker must send documents to a party by personal delivery, mail, fax, or email as provided in this section.
( c ) *Methods of service* — ( 1 ) *General.* A person may serve any document by email, personal delivery, mail, or fax.
( 2 ) *Service by email.* Service of documents by email is voluntary and requires the prior consent of the person to be served by email. A person may retract consent to be served by email by filing a written retraction with the FAA Hearing Docket and serving it on the other party and the administrative law judge. A document that is served by email must be attached as a PDF file to an email message.
( d ) *Certificate of service.* A certificate of service must accompany all documents filed with the FAA Hearing Docket. The certificate of service must be signed, describe the method of service, and state the date of service.
( e ) *Date of service.* If a document is served by fax or served by email, the date of service is the date the email or fax is sent. If a document is served by personal delivery, the date of service is the date that personal delivery is accomplished. If a document is mailed, the date of service is the date shown on the certificate of service, the date shown on the postmark if there is no certificate of service, or the mailing date shown by other evidence if there is no certificate of service or postmark.
( f ) *Valid service.* A document served by mail or personal delivery that was properly addressed, was sent in accordance with this subpart, and that was returned as unclaimed, or that was refused or not accepted, is deemed to have been served in accordance with this subpart.
( g ) *Additional time after service by mail.* Whenever a party must respond within a prescribed period after service by mail, 5 days are added to the prescribed period.
( h ) *Presumption of service.* There is a presumption of service where a party or a person, who customarily receives mail, or receives it in the ordinary course of business, at either the person's residence or the person's principal place of business, acknowledges receipt of the document.
#### § 1271.410 Enforcement.

The head of each agency shall take such actions as are necessary to ensure that the provisions herein are vigorously implemented and enforced in that agency.
March 19 , 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alaska Airlines’ application for SAN

- DCA, Docket No. DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0029.

Dear Secretary LaHood :

CONNECT fully supports the application of Alaska Airlines for air service between San Diego and Washington Reagan Nati onal Ai rport (DCA) . San Diego is the largest region without direct service to DCA

. Additionally, due to the profound community of interest between San Diego and the nation’s capital, the region
generates the largest passenger market demand without nonstop service to the convenient and close

in airport serving our nation’s capital

.

San Diego’s sheer market size to Washington coupled with the fact that San Diego to Dulles average airfares are the highest of west coast cities

, s hould qualify for the limited slots available for this flight

. The high airfare is exacerbated when factoring in taxi fares from Dulles to Washington’s city center that average about $ 6 0 each way. This means travelers between Washington’s city center and San Diego via Dulles can pay on

average close to $400 one

- way

.

As the CEO of CONNECT, an organization that has assisted in the formation and development of more than 3,000 companies and links inventors and entrepreneurs with the resources they need for commercialization of innovative products , I have a v ested interest in helping to bridge the gap between Washington D.C. professionals and San Diego businesses

. There are countless San Diego

- based and Washington

- based businesses that are engaged in health science, telecommunications, and national defense that nee d quick and convenient access to Reagan National Airport. San Diego’ s small business community h as an immediate need for additional nonstop air service to D.C. to help them foster relationships in our nation’s capital that will help bring new, innovative products to market. Alaska Airlines service would add a much needed nonstop option to a primary gateway to Washington, DC.

CONNECT joins with the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, the World Trade Center San Diego, and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce in support of Alaska Airlines’ application for San Diego

– Wa shington Reagan National slots. We thank the Department of Transportation for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced docket and we hope to hear of a favorable review of Alaska Airlines’ San Diego

– DCA proposal soon.

Sincerely,

Duane Roth

CEO

, CONNECT djroth@connect.org
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               4
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,382
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,342
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,873
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,523
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,354
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (441)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (441)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3690 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3690

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 26, 2004

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, as the ``Barber Conable 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2 West 
Main Street in Batavia, New York, shall be known and designated as the 
``Barber Conable Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Barber Conable Post Office 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 25, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24158-1 Filed:05/08/23 Entered:05/08/23 10:03:22 Desc:

Defective Pleading - Marisol Collado Ramos Page 1 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24158-1 Filed:05/08/23 Entered:05/08/23 10:03:22 Desc:

Defective Pleading - Marisol Collado Ramos Page 2 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24158-1 Filed:05/08/23 Entered:05/08/23 10:03:22 Desc:

Defective Pleading - Marisol Collado Ramos Page 3 of 4
LTS Doc#:24158-1 Filed:05/08/23 Entered:05/08/23 

Defective Pleading - Marisol Collado Ramos Page 4 of 4
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 20, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00786

- CV

Anthony MOORE and Jo ann Moore

,

Appellant s

v.

David SUBIA

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CV04165 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On December 1, 2016, t he trial court signed a Judgment for Forcible Eviction and

Detainer and set supersedeas bond in the amount of $15,000. On December 5, 2 016, Appellants Anthony Moore and Jo Moore filed a notice of appeal, stating their intent to appeal from the trial court’s judgment. They a lso filed an Emergency Motion and Plea for Temporary Relief and Review of Excessive Supersedeas Bond, requesting tha t we also review the trial court’s setting of supersedeas bond in the amount of $15,000. On December 8, 2016, we granted the Moores’ motion to the extent that we ordered the judgment of the t rial court stayed pending review of the amount of supersedeas bon d. See T EX

. P ROP

. C ODE A NN

. § 24.007 (West 2014); T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

24.4. We thus ordered supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records related to the setting of the supersedeas bond to be filed for appellate review

. Those records have now been filed.

We th erefore request that Appellee David Subia file a response to the Moores’ motion seeking review of the supersedeas bond on or before December 30, 2016

.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of December, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle , Clerk
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24816-3 

En
§ 125.7 Display of certificate. ( a ) The certificate holder must display a true copy of the certificate in each of its aircraft.
( b ) Each operator holding a Letter of Deviation Authority issued under this part must carry a true copy in each of its airplanes.
§ 147.13 Facilities, equipment, and material requirements. ( a ) Each certificated aviation maintenance technician school must provide and maintain the facilities, equipment, and materials that are appropriate to the rating or ratings held by the school and the number of students taught.
( b ) For certificated aviation maintenance technician schools that provide training at more than one location in accordance with § 147.15, the facilities, equipment, and materials used at each location must be appropriate to the curriculum or portion of the curriculum, and the number of students being taught, at that location.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Consolidated Balance Sheets of Interep
National Radio Sales, Inc. and Subsidiaries and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          16,347
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,459
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,477
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,473
<PP&E>                                          22,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,953
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 163,302
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,857
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,906)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   163,302
<SALES>                                         41,736
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,478
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,090
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,812
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,424)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,684)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,740)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,740)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1069]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-6525-4]


North Dakota: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program Revision

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY:  The EPA proposes to grant Final authorization to the 
hazardous waste program changes submitted by North Dakota. In the 
``Rules'' section of this Federal Register, we are authorizing the 
State's program changes as an immediate final rule without a prior 
proposed rule because we believe this action as not controversial. 
Unless we get written comments opposing this authorization during the 
comment period, the immediate final rule will become effective and the 
Agency will not take further action on this proposal. If we receive 
comments that oppose this action, we will publish a timely document in 
the Federal Register withdrawing this rule before it takes effect. EPA 
will address public comments in a later final rule based on this 
proposal. EPA may not provide further opportunity for comment. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this action must do so at this 
time.

EFFECTIVE DATE: We must receive your comments by February 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Send written comments to Kris Shurr, 8P-HW, U.S. EPA, 
Region VIII, 999 18th St, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone 
number: (303) 312-6139. You can view and copy North Dakota's 
application at the following addresses: NDDH from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM, 
1200 Missouri Ave, Bismarck, ND 58504-5264, contact: Curt Erickson, 
phone number (701) 328-5166 and EPA Region VIII, from 8:00 AM to 3:00 
PM, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, contact: 
Kris Shurr, phone number: (303) 312-6139.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kris Shurr, EPA Region VIII, 999 18th 
Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, phone number: (303) 
312-6139.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  For additional information, please see the 
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules'' section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: January 5, 2000.
Jack W. McGraw,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.
[FR Doc. 00-1069 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1600

SHELLY LYNN BALTGALVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING, INCORPORATED, and its subsidiary; NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-55) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shelly Lynn Baltgalvis, Appellant Pro Se. Dean C. Berry, NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO., Newport News, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Shelly Lynn Baltgalvis appeals from the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to Newport News Shipbuilding, Incorporated and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Baltgalvis v. Newport News Shipbuilding, Inc. , No. CA-00-55 (E.D. Va. Feb. 23 and Mar. 28, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SETH SUNDBERG,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10338

D.C. No. 5:09-cr-00928-JF-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 17, 2012** 

San Francisco, California

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-appellant Seth Sundberg (“Sundberg”) appeals the district court’s

entry of judgment on his guilty plea. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 22 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(K), a judge must inform

the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the court’s

authority to order restitution. Despite this express requirement, a judge’s failure to

comply “is harmless error if it does not affect substantial rights.” Fed. R. Crim.

Pro. 11(h). We have held that a district court’s failure to advise a defendant of its

restitution authority is harmless if “the defendant was advised he was subject to a

fine in an amount in excess of the restitution imposed.” United States v. Crawford,

169 F.3d 590, 592 (9th Cir. 1999) (emphasis added). In this case, Sundberg

admitted the facts of the indictment, including his unlawful receipt of a $5 million

tax refund. Although the district court failed to advise Sundberg of its restitution

authority, the court affirmatively warned Sundberg that he could face “a $250,000

fine or twice the value of the gross gain or loss,” thus putting Sundberg on notice

that he could suffer a fine in excess of $10 million. Because this figure is far

higher than Sundberg’s eventual $2,488,613.38 restitution order, the error was

harmless.

AFFIRMED.