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

**Certification ofPrincipal Financial Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I, Theodore S. Alpert,certify that:

(1)   Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AdvanstarCommunications Inc. (the “registrant”);

(2)   Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3)   Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

(4)   Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)  [Reserved]

(c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(d) Disclosedin 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 quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

(5) The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
|  Date: April 2, 2007 |   | By:    |   | /s/ Ted S. Alpert       |   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                      |   |   |   | Theodore S. Alpert      |
|                      |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30101-30102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11620]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-263-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

May 4, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2000, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern) tendered for filing changes in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1 the following tariff sheets proposed to be 
effective June 1, 2000.

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 267
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 268
Third Revised Sheet No. 269
First Revised Sheet No. 269A
Original Sheet No. 269B

    Northern states that the purpose of this filing is to revise the 
tariff provisions relating to the price to resolve monthly imbalances. 
Specifically, Northern proposes to replace the Monthly Average Index 
Price with High, Low and Average Weekly System and Field Index Prices. 
Northern is proposing a pricing mechanism whereby the imbalance is 
valued based on an average weekly index price that differs for payable 
and receivable imbalances.
    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed 
to each of its customers and interested State Commission.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C.

[[Page 30102]]

20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 
154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies 
of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-11620 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 10.3


 


	
  Boise Cascade, L.L.C.

  1111 West Jefferson
  Street, Suite 300

  PO Box 50  Boise, ID 83728-5389

  T 208 384 6161

  www.bc.com

  	
  

  



 


 


CONFIDENTIAL


 


 


August 11,
2009


 


 


Mr. Wayne
M. Rancourt


[Address]


 


 


Dear
Wayne:


 


Congratulations
on your recent promotion!  This letter
amends the letter agreement between you and Boise Cascade, L.L.C. dated February 22,
2008 (the “2008 Agreement”), to conform the benefits provided in the 2008
Agreement to the benefits appropriate for your new position.  Capitalized terms used in this letter shall
have the meanings given to those terms in the 2008 Agreement.  This agreement shall be effective on August 16,
2009.


 


Section 4.A(2) is
amended to provide that the amount of the lump sum severance payment is 2 times
the sum of (a) your annual base salary at the rate in effect at the time
Notice of Termination is given, plus (b) your target annual incentive for
the year in which the Date of Termination occurs (“Target Bonus”).


 


Section 4.B
is amended to provide that the Company shall continue your benefit plans for an
18-month period following the Date of Termination and shall pay the
Company-paid premium under the Company’s Supplemental Life Plan for 24 months
following the Date of Termination.


 


The
next to last sentence of Section 4.D. is amended to replace the reference
to “the 12-month period” with “the 18-month period.”


 


All
terms and provisions of the 2008 Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect, subject to the above modifications.


 













 


Page 2


August 11, 2009


 


 


If
this letter correctly sets forth our agreement on the subject matter hereof,
kindly sign and return to the Company the enclosed copy of this letter which
will then constitute our agreement on this subject.


 


Sincerely,


 


BOISE
CASCADE, L.L.C.


 


 


	
  By

  	
  /s/
  John T. Sahlberg

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  John
  T. Sahlberg

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Vice
  President, HR and Communications

  	
   

  



 


 


AGREED
TO AND ACCEPTED this 11th day of August, 2009.


 


 


/s/
Wayne M. Rancourt


Wayne
M. Rancourt
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Pulaski Financial Corp.

Registrant

Pulaski Financial Corp.



|                                     |  |                         |  |                                       
|------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries (1)                     |  | Percentage of Ownership |  | Jurisdiction or State of Incorporation
|Pulaski Bank                         |  | 100%                    |  | United States                         
|Pulaski Service Corporation (2)      |  | 100%                    |  | Missouri                              
|Pulaski Financial Statutory Trust I  |  | 100%                    |  | Connecticut                           
|Pulaski Financial Statutory Trust II |  | 100%                    |  | Delaware                              

---

|(1) | The operations of the subsidiaries of the Registrant are included in the Registrants Consolidated Financial Statements contained in the Annual Report to Stockholders.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Wholly-owned by Pulaski Bank.
|--- | -----------------------------
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
      (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
annual report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(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 (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  (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 control over financial reporting.
 /s/ Thomas M. DonnellyThomas M. DonnellyChief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50933 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE RODOLFO BORUNDA-RIVERA, also known as Jose Borunda, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-66-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Rodolfo Borunda-Rivera raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                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 annual  report on Form 20-F of Amdocs  Limited
(the  "Company")  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2008 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  Tamar  Rapaport-Dagim,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,
hereby  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, that to the best of his
knowledge and belief:

         (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.


Dated:   December 8, 2008

/s/ Tamar Rapaport-Dagim
----------------------------
Tamar Rapaport-Dagim
Chief Financial Officer
Amdocs Management Limited
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 10/02/2014

FROM: Laura Farris/EPA Region 8

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: AWEA’s Colorado Wind Forum held on 10/01/2014

SUMMARY: 

Shaun McGrath, EPA Region 8 Regional Administrator, and Laura Farris, EPA Region 8 Climate Change 

Coordinator, spoke about the Clean Power Plan at the Colorado Wind Forum held by the American Wind 

Energy Association on October 1, 2014. Mr. McGrath was on a panel in the morning session, and Ms. 

Farris was a table topic leader during the lunch hour. The Plan was proposed on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES:

EPA Region 8

Shaun McGrath

Laura Farris

External Stakeholders

Forum Organizer: Larry Flowers

Other Panelists

Bill Ritter Center for the New Energy Economy/Colorado State U.

Susan Reilly RES

Chris Brown Vestas

Mike Bowman 25x'25

Shaun McGrath EPA Region 8

Jon Golden-duBois Western Resource Advocated

Other Table Topic Leaders

Mike Schmidt MDA Turbines

Shawn Lamb Danish Wind Power Academy

Susan Innis Xcel Energy

Ron Lehr America’s Power Plan

Michael Milligan NREL

Charles Newcomb Endurance Windpower

Michael Kostrzewa Colorado State University

John Covert Working Landscapes

Dan Fesenmeyer General Electric

Sandy Butterfield Boulder Wind Power

Stacy Telinghausen Western Resource Advocates

Kent Singer Colorado Rural Electric Association 

Sarah Propst Interwest Energy Alliance

Lisa Hickey Colorado Lawyers

Steve Black Bingham McCutchen LLP

Brian Smith NREL

Anna Giovenetti RES-Americas

Jon Chase Vestas
Brad Haight Compass Energies

Mark Jacobson NREL

Mark Stacy Iberdrola Renewables

Baird, Mick Invenergy LLC

Pam Kiely PK Strategies LLC

Tom Darin AWEA
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            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 Amalgamated Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  David Rector, Chief Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

     A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.

/s/  David  Rector
------------------
Name:  David  Rector
Title: Chief  Executive  and  Financial  Officer
Date:  November  13,  2003


                                       14
<PAGE>
#### INDEPENDENT FIRE INSURANCE CO. a/s/o ROBIN RAGSDALE v MCLAUGHLIN

Case No. 90-17995 SP 05

County Court, Dade County

April 19, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Ralph W. Symons, Esquire, for plaintiff.

Cindy McLaughlin, pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

HARVEY L. GOLDSTEIN, County Judge.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Rehearing is denied based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. The Defendant, Cindy McLaughlin, resides in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida.

2. The accident occurred and the cause of action accrued in Indian River County.

3. The Plaintiff insurance company is located in Jacksonville, Florida and the auto property damage claim was processed in Jacksonville.

*1234. The insured, Robin Ragsdale, resides in Indian River County.

5. This law suit has no connection to Dade County except the Plaintiff assigned its claim to the law firm of Ralph W. Symons, P.A. for collection.

6. Florida Statute §47.011 which covers venue is very clear and mandatory. It states “Actions *shall*be brought *only*in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued. . (emphasis added)

7. The Plaintiff’s Complaint, return of service and response to the Court’s oral inquiry affirmatively show that venue is lacking in Dade County.

8. It is axiomatic law that statutes must be construed strictly.

9. Although the Defendant has the burden of pleading and proving that the venue is improper, it would be improper for this Court to ignore the clear mandate of Florida Statute § 47.011 under the facts in this case. See *Davis v Dempsey,*343 SO.2d 950 (3 DCA 1977).

10. A Court should not enter a final judgment after a default where the Judgment will result from a violation of Florida statutory law.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Dade County, Florida, this 19th day of April, 1991.
#### § 435.41 General.

The FAA conducts a payload reentry review to examine the policy and safety issues related to the proposed reentry of a payload, except a U.S. Government payload, to determine whether the FAA will approve the reentry of the payload.
#### § 65.65 Aircraft dispatcher certification courses: Training facilities.

An applicant for approval of authority to operate an aircraft dispatcher course of study must have facilities, equipment, and materials adequate to provide each student the theoretical and practical aspects of aircraft dispatching. Each room, training booth, or other space used for instructional purposes must be temperature controlled, lighted, and ventilated to conform to local building, sanitation, and health codes. In addition, the training facility must be so located that the students in that facility are not distracted by the instruction conducted in other rooms.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dov Baharav, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Amdocs Limited;

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

     4. The company's other certifying officer(s) 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 company 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 company, 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) [Not applicable]

     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company'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 company's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual
report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
company's auditors and the audit committee of the company'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 company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: December 30, 2004

/s/  DOV BAHARAV
---------------------------------------------------------
Dov Baharav,
Chief Executive Officer,
Amdocs Management Limited
#### Michael A. Leo et al., Respondents, v Artco Contracting, Inc., et al., Appellants, and John Clark et al., Respondents. Artco Contracting, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v Niagara Erecting, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. F.L. Heughes & Co., Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v Niagara Erecting, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[697 NYS2d 808]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law *809without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Michael A. Leo (plaintiff), an employee of third-party defendant, Niagara Erecting, Inc. (Niagara), was injured when he fell approximately 40 feet while erecting a beam of structural steel. Plaintiffs allege that plaintiff fell when struck by a beam of iron or steel that was being hoisted by a crane to his location. It is undisputed that plaintiff was not tied off to a safety line or other object at the time of the accident. Because factual issues exist whether adequate and proper safety devices were provided to protect plaintiff from falling, Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) *{see, Kulp v Gannett Co.*[appeal No. 1], 259 AD2d 969). Thus, we reverse the order in appeal No. 1 and deny plaintiffs’ motion.

The court also erred in granting the cross motion of defendant-third-party plaintiff Artco Contracting, Inc. (Artco) for summary judgment seeking a conditional order of common-law indemnification against Niagara. Factual issues exist whether Artco was negligent in conducting the safety meeting on the morning prior to plaintiff’s accident and in advising ironworkers regarding the weather that day, thereby precluding summary judgment on the issue of Artco’s entitlement to common-law indemnification *(see, Eastman v Volpi Mfg. USA,*229 AD2d 913). Thus, we modify the order in appeal No. 2 by denying the cross motion of Artco. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Scudder and Balio, JJ.