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

                        CERTIFICATION

I, Craig D. Stratton, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q  of
Allstates WorldCargo,    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(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 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)  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

  (c)  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

5.     The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s)  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  the  registrant'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
      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.


May 15, 2006

/s/ Craig D. Stratton
Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer
#### METYANCZYK v SZYCH

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Lucas Co.

No 2099,

Decided Dec 24, 1928.

S R Urbanski and Cornell Schreiber, Toledo, for Metyanczyk.

S A Grzezinski, Toledo, for Szych.

LLOYD,J.

We are unable to see upon what reasoning the trial judge concluded that the petition of the plaintiff did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in view of the allegation therein that “the defendant assaulted and beat and .struck her with a hammer and otherwise”. There is nothing in the pleadings to indicate whether the plaintiff was or was not married and if she were married and this fact was admitted in the pleadings, no motion having been made to make the petition definite as to the injuries of which she complained or to strike therefrom such allegations as’were claimed to be immaterial, sufficient facts to create a cause of action having been alleged, she would be entitled to a verdict for the injuries, if any, sustained by her for which the law permits a recovery.

Since the petition alleged facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the evidence offered by plaintiff at the trial tended to prove the facts so alleged, it seems to us apparent that the trial judge was wrong in his conclusion.

Richards and Williams, JJ., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Agness quadrangle, Oregon :7.5-minute series (topographic)**
 
2012 | 2014 | 2015
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28/6:42124-E 1/
Item Number:0080-G-04 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000932623
 
February 7, 2018
INFIRMARY DIRECTORS.

[Erie Circuit Court,

April, 1894.]

Bentley, Haynes and Scribner, JJ.

#### Littleton v. Board of Infirmary Directors et al.

Board May Remove Superintendent at Pleasure.

The board of infirmary directors, under sec. 962 Rev. Stat., have power to remove a superintendent at pleasure. A court of equity will not, therefore, after such office has been legally terminated, extend the *tenure*until plaintiff’s alleged title can be adjudicated in a legal action.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Erie county.

Per Curiam.

In this case plaintiff was appointed in May, 1888, by the defendant board, superintendent of the infirmary for one year, at a salary of $700, and $250 for his wife as-matron. In January, 1894, the board removed Eittleton as superintendent, and appointed defendant Irvin as superintendent ; thereupon an action was begun by Eittleton for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his discharge of his duties as superintendent till in some legal action the title to said office be adjudicated. A demurrer to the petition was filed. The court of common pleas sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition, and the plaintiff appealed to the circuit court and asked a preliminary injunc. *851tion pending this action. The injunction was refused, as sec. 962, Rev. Stat., is explicit in giving to the infirmary directors the power to remove the superintendent at pleasure, and that, having exercised the power, a court of equity ought not to practically extend a tenure clearly appearing to have been legally terminated.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 94 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12168]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Special Committee 193/EUROCAE Working Group 44; Terrain and 
Airport Databases

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a 
Special Committee 193/EUROCAE Working Group 44 meeting to be held June 
5-9, 2000, starting at 9 a.m. The meeting will be held at The 
Sweetbrier Inn, 7125 SW Nyberg Road, Tualatin, Oregon 97062 (South of 
Portland).
    The agenda will be as follows:

June 5  Opening Plenary Session

(1) Welcome and Introductions
(2) Review/Approval of Meeting Agenda
(3) Review Summary of the Previous Meeting
(4) Discussion of Interface Issues between Subgroups 2 and 3;
1 p.m.  (5) Subgroup 2--Terrain and Obstacle Databases;
    (a) Review of Summary of the Previous Meeting
    (b) Review of Actions Items
    (c) Review of the Draft Document
    (d) Other Subgroup 2 Activities
(6) Subgroup 3--Airport Databases:
    (a) Review of Previous Meeting Minutes
    (b) Review of Actions Items
    (c) Presentations
    (d) Review of the Draft Document

June 6-8

(7) Subgroup 2--Continuation of Discussions
(8) Subgroup 3--Continuation of Discussions.

June 9  Closing Plenary Session

(9) Summary of Subgroups 2 and 3 Meetings
(10) Assign Tasks
(11) Other business
(12) Dates and Locations of Next Meeting
(13) Closing.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members the public may 
present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 833-9339 
(phone), (202) 833-9434 (fax), or http://www.rtca.org (web site) or the 
on-site contact, Mr. Walter Johnson, at (503) 443-3321 or email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd8a9c9189a2979295938e9293bd9b9189998493d39e9290"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9bea8a5bd96a3a6a1a7baa6a789afa5bdadb0a7e7aaa6a4">[email protected]</span></a>. Members of the public may present a written 
statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2000.
Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 00-12168 Filed 5-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### HALE & HOLMES CO v ZELLNER, Admrx.

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.

No 9568.

Decided June 17, 1929

Dusti'n, McKeehan, Merrick, Arter, & Stewart, Cleveland, for Hale & Holmes Co.

Bersteen & Bersteen, Cleveland, for Zellner.

Judges HUGHES & JUSTICE (3rd Dist.) and WILLIAMS (5th Dist.) sitting.

HUGHES, PJ.

There are but two questions urged upon us for consideration that we deem of merit. The first is the excessiveness of the recovery which was $5,000.00.

It will be observed that his actual loss in wages would amount to less than $1000.00 and that the verdict allowed by the jury is something over $4,000.00 for the pain and suffering over a period of less than six months, there being no claim for damages in this action for wrongful death.

We do not consider it profitable to discuss at length the reasons why we conclude that the amount of the recovery is not sustained by the weight of the evidence but this is our conclusion. It will be readily seen that if the amount of the verdict is multiplied by the expectancy that this man had to life under the mortality tables, there would be little question in view of the nature of the injuries, that the verdict is excessive and naturally a recovery of this amount covering a period of some six months is certainly not justified by the evidence before us.

The second question urged upon us is that the court erred in failing to charge the law pertaining to contributory negligence and in stating in his charge unequivocally that no claim is' made in this case of contributory negligence on the part of the decedent, John R. Zellner.

It is true that no issue is raised by the pleadings. We think however, under the circumstances of this case, showing the decedent remaining in a public thoroughfare with a complete knowledge of the dangerous and slippery character of the pavement without taking, any precaution *420whatever for his own safety, would warrant the jury in concluding that he may have been guilty of negligence contributing directly to the injuries and for this reason we are of the opinion that it was the duty of the court especially when his attention was called to this issue, at the close of the charge, to have charged the law relative to contributory negligence.

For these reasons the judgment is reversed, a new trial ordered and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Exceptions saved.

Justice and Williams, JJ, concur.
#### CAMPBELL v GUMINA et

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning County

Decided March 15, 1929

C. C. McGowan, Youngstown, for Campbell.

McKain & Ohl, Youngstown, for Gumina, et.

*455FARR, J.

A motion was filed in the court below by plaintiff in error to require the return of the June installment of taxes upon the theory that they had been improperly paid. Section 2583 GC provides the manner in which taxes shall be levied against real estate in the state of Ohio.

A further provision of 2583 GC is:

(Here follows quotation)

The right to the payment of taxes in this proceeding as provided by 5693 GC, is as follows:

(Here follows quotation)

The question here arises as to the construction of this statute and when the taxes in question attach. As will be recalled from the section just read, the county auditor had already performed his duty. He had made up the tax duplicate and passed it to the county treasurer. It is provided that taxes for a current year shall be paid the first half in December of that year, and the second half-in June of the succeeding year. When the county treasurer received the tax duplicate on October 1st, 1927, the taxes for the year 1927 had been levied against this real estate and were then due. It is true taxes are, by the system applicable in Ohio, paid on or before the 20th day of December, and on or before the 20th day of the following June, and such seems bo be the reasonable construction of these statutes.

In the case of Hoglen v Cohan, 30 U. S., 436, it is held in the first proposition of the syllabus as follows:

(Here follows quotation)

The holding in the above case leaves no question as to the payment of the taxes in the case at bar. Following the first day of October the taxes for the whole year were due and became a lien upon this property.'

The same principle is announced in Makley v Whitmore, 61 OS, 587, in the second proposition of the syllabus, as follows:

(Here follows quotation)

And which is now Section 5692 of the General Code. True, this relates to installments, but there is no difference to be made as between taxes legally entered ard installments which are assessed as taxes against real estate.

In the instant case plaintiff in error perhaps misapprehended his remedy. He made a motion to require that the $32.10 be returned which had wrongfully been deducted, as he claims, from the proceeds of the sale. Another remedy was his, but it matters not so far as the merits of this controversy are concerned; the issue is being determined in the light of the statutes and cases cited. It follows that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed and it i° so ordered.

Pollock and Roberts, JJ, concur.
#### § 1601.5 District; field; area; local authority.

The term “district” as used herein shall mean that part of the United States or any territory thereof fixed by the Commission as a particular district. The term “district director” shall refer to that person designated as the Commission's chief officer in each district. The term “Washington Field Office Director” shall refer to that person designated as the Commission's chief officer in the Washington Field Office. Any authority of, or delegation of authority to, District Directors shall be deemed to include the Director of the Washington Field Office. The term “field” shall mean that part of the United States within a district fixed by the Commission as a particular subunit of a district, except for the Washington Field Office which is not part of any district fixed by the Commission. The term “field director” shall refer to that person designated as the Commission's chief officer in each field office. The term “area” shall mean that part of the United States within a district fixed by the Commission as a particular subunit of a district. The term “area director” shall refer to that person designated as the Commission's chief officer in each area office. The term “local office” shall mean an EEOC office with responsibility over a part of the United States within a district fixed by the Commission as a particular subunit of a district. The term “local director” shall refer to that person designated as the Commission's chief officer for the local office. Each district office and the Washington Field Office will operate under the supervision of the Director, Office of Field Programs through the Director of Field Management Programs, and the General Counsel. Each field, area and local office, except for the Washington Field Office, will operate under the supervision of the district director. Any or all delegations, or actions taken, as provided by this part may be revoked and /or exercised by the supervisor in keeping with the supervisory structure described in this section.

[71 FR 26827, May 9, 2006, as amended at 85 FR 65217, Oct. 15, 2020]
§ 1471.805 What notice does the debarring official give me if I am proposed for debarment? After consideration of the causes in § 1471.800 of this subpart, if the debarring official proposes to debar you, the official sends you a Notice of Proposed Debarment, pursuant to § 1471.615, advising you— ( a ) That the debarring official is considering debarring you;
( b ) Of the reasons for proposing to debar you in terms sufficient to put you on notice of the conduct or transactions upon which the proposed debarment is based;
( c ) Of the cause(s) under § 1471.800 upon which the debarring official relied for proposing your debarment;
( d ) Of the applicable provisions of this subpart, subpart F of this part, and any other FMCS procedures governing debarment; and
( e ) Of the governmentwide effect of a debarment from procurement and nonprocurement programs and activities.
[No. 49530-5-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Devaughn Christopher Dorsey, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-00234-8, Cheryl B. Carey and Terence Lukens, JJ., and Barbara Harris, J. Pro Tern., entered June 15, 2001. *Dismissed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Annual report for the fiscalyear ended June 30...**
 
1955 | 1956 | 1957 | 1958 | 1959
1960 | 1961 | 1962 | 1963 | 1964 | 1965 | 1966 | 1967 | 1968
 
SuDoc Number:T 22.1:
Item Number:0955 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000934130
 
January 31, 2018
Chemical Species and their Lower Limits of Determination								
											
											
											
Analytical Method	AES_AZ_P	AES_HF	EDX	ES_SQ	FA_MS	MS_ST_REE	NA_LC	NA_SC	WDX	Other	Other
Unit	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	ppm	pct	ppm	pct
Species											
Ag	0.08	2		0.5							
Al		50							0.1		
As	1	10		200			1				
Au	0.1	8		10			0.004	0.0025		0.002	
B				10							
Ba		1	30	20			100	100			
Be		1		1							
Bi	1	10		10							
Br											
CO2											0.01
Ca		50		500			1000		0.02		
Cd	0.05	2		20							
Ce		5	30			2	0.1	0.1			
Cl											0.01
Co		2		10			0.1	0.1			
Cr		2	20	10			0.1	0.1			
Cs							0.1	0.1			
Cu	0.05	2	10	5							
Dy						0.5					
Er						0.4					
Eu		2				0.1	0.01	0.01			
F											0.01
Fe		200		500			10	10	0.04		
FeO											0.01
Ga		4		5							
Gd						0.5					
Ge				10							
H2O											0.05
H2Ob											0.05
H2Om											0.05
Hf							0.01	0.01			
Hg										0.02	
Ho		4				0.1					
Ir					0.0005						
K		100					1000		0.02		
La		2	30	50		1	0.01	0.01			
Li		2									
LOI											0.01
Lu							0.01	0.01			
Mg		50		200					0.1		
Mn		4		10					0.01		
Mo	0.1	2		5							
Na				2000			10	10	0.15		
Nb		4	10	20							
Nd		9				1	1	1			
Ni		3	10	5			10	10			
P		50		2000					0.05		
Pb	1	4		10							
Pd					0.0015						
Pr						0.2					
Pt					0.0015						
Rb			10				1	1			
Rh					0.0005						
Ru					0.0005						
Sb	1			100			0.1	0.1			
Sc		2		5			0.01	0.01			
Sm						0.4	0.1	0.1			
Sn				10							
Sr		2	10	100			10	10			
Si									0.1		
Ta		40					0.01	0.01			
Tb						0.1	0.01	0.01			
Th		6		100			0.1	0.1		1	
Ti		50		20					0.02		
Tm						0.1					
U						0.1	0.1	0.1		0.1	
V		2		10							
W				20							
Y		2	10	10							
Yb		1				0.4	0.1	0.1			
Zn	0.05	2	10	200			1	1			
Zr			10	10			100	100
§ 1471.945 Excluded or exclusion. *Excluded or exclusion* means— ( a ) That a person or commodity is prohibited from being a participant in covered transactions, whether the person has been suspended; debarred; proposed for debarment under 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4; voluntarily excluded; or
( b ) The act of excluding a person.
# Table 9
#### BRYAN et v FITTS et

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Lorain Co

No 463.

Decided Dec 21, 1928

Webber & Symons, Elyria, for Bryan et.

Baird, Vandemark & Butler, Elyria, for Fitts et. „ ’

WASHBURN, PJ

We find that plaintiffs’ predecessor in-title dedicated to the public, as a fight of way for road purposes the part of said premises south of said line, and that the proper public authorities accepted said dedication and have a right to continue such uáe, and therefore plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought in their petition, and said petition is dismissed at their costs.

Funk, J, and Pardee, J, concur.
#### PORELLO v STATE

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21579.

Decided June 19, 1929

Syllabus by

ALLEN, J.

CRIMINAL LAW

(190 C8) A police officer of a municipality is authorized without a warrant to arrest a person found on the public streets of the corporation carrying concealed weapons in violation of 12819 GC, although such police officer has no previous personal knowledge of the fact, if he acts bona fide and upon such information as induces an honest belief that the pe'rson árrested is in the act of violating the law.

When a person .is rightfully arrested upon a charge of carrying concealed weapons contrary to law, the revolver which is taken into' custody of the police is admissible in evidence upon the trial, and upon motion of the defendant to • return such revolver or suppress it as evidence, the trial court does not commit error in refusing such application.

The words “concealed on or about his person” in 12819 GC, mean concealed in such proximity to the person as to be convenient of access and within immediate physical reach.

A firearm is concealed about the person of the driver of an automobile when he carries it in the pocket of the automobile door in his immediate proximity.

Under 12692 GC, if the defendant seeks to justify the carrying of such weapon concealed on or about his person, the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show by a preponderance of all the evidence that at the time of carrying the weapon in question he was engaged in a lawful business, calling or employment, and that the circumstances in which he was placed justified a prudent man in carrying such weapon for the defense of his person, property or family. However, the burden does not shift from the state to. establish every material allegation of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Marshall, CJ, Kinkade, Matthias and Day, JJ, concur.