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

Certification of Chief Executive Officer under Rule 13a-14a/15d-14(a)

     I Maurice Colson, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Visual Bible International, Inc.;

     2.   Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report.

     3.   Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report.

     4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and have:

          a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

          b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior
to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and

          c)   Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure 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 recent evaluation, 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 in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; 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.

     6.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: November 24, 2004            /s/Maurice Colson


                                   Maurice Colson, Principal
                                   Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1263]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA No. 99-3041; MM Docket No. 99-307; RM-9739]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Big Sky, MT

AGENCY:  Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:  Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This document allots Channel 242A at Big Sky, Montana, in 
response to a petition filed by R. Steven Hicks. See 64 FR 57837, 
October 27, 1999. The coordinates for Channel 242A at Big Sky are 45-
16-02 NL and 111-22-14 WL. There is a site restriction 7.1 kilometers 
(4.4 miles) west of the community. With this action, this proceeding is 
terminated. A filing window for Channel 242A at Big Sky will not be 
opened at this time. Instead, the issue of opening a filing window for 
this channel will be addressed by the Commission in a subsequent order.

DATES:  Effective February 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media 
Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This is a summary of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-307, adopted December 29, 1999 and 
released January 7, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, 
facsimile (202) 857-3805.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Montana, is 
amended by adding Channel 242A at Big Sky.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-1263 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.104 Agency responsibilities. ( a ) As authorized and required by law, each Department of Labor agency may refer past-due legally enforceable debts to IRS for collection by offset from any overpayment of income tax that may otherwise be due to be refunded to the taxpayer.
( b ) Prior to actual referral of a past-due legally enforceable debt for tax refund offset, the DOL agency heads (or their designees) must take the actions specified in § 20.107 and, as appropriate, § 20.106 and § 20.108.
( c ) DOL agency heads must ensure the confidentiality of taxpayer information as required by IRS in its *Tax Information Security Guidelines.*
Muldoon, Albert (OST) From: Sent: To: Subject: To whom it may concern: Lindsay Givens <lgivens@arkansas.net> Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:24 PM EAS (OST) Essential Air Service - Arkansas**·~ ~**  ' ;:**""~**

I was very pleased with the customer service ofSeaport Airlines last summer when I flew withthem from El Dorado, Arkansas to Dallas. The plane was ontime, andthe crew was very courteous. I am planning to use them again later this summer. I strongly urge you to renew their Essential Air Service Contract. Sincerely, Lindsay Givens MeNeil, Arkansas

1
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 349TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOUSTON COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 14th

day of January, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

ALFRED LEE STONE, Appellant

NO. 12-14-00364-CV; Trial Court No. 14-0076

By per curiam opinion.

SGT. ALLEN BASKIN, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, 

it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, 

and the same is, hereby dismissed as frivolous; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 27th day of March, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT CROYSDILL

,

Appellant

,

v.

OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

COMPANY

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00 191

- C V

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 6

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2013

- DCV1136 )

O R D E R

On the Court’s own motion, and pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 39.1, the Court finds that oral

argument in the above styled and numbered cause would not materially aid in the disposition of

this cause, therefore, this case is scheduled to be submitted without ora l argument on January 27,

2023.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 0 th d ay of January, 20 2 3

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C. J., Palafox and Soto, J J.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12533]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: June 6, 2000.
    Time: 7 am to 8 am.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott Hotel, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, 
MD 20914.
    Contact Person: Ronald Suddendorf, Phd, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute 
on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 
Suite 409, 6000 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-7003, 301-
443-2926.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 10, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-12533 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 2520.103-8 Limitation on scope of accountant's examination. ( a ) *General.* Under the authority of section 103(a)(3)(C) of the Act, the examination and report of an independent qualified public accountant need not extend to any statement or information prepared and certified by a bank or similar institution or insurance carrier. A plan, trust or other entity which meets the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section is not required to have covered by the accountant's examination or report any of the information described in paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Application.* This section applies to any plan, trust or other entity some or all of the assets of which are held by a bank or similar institution or insurance carrier which is regulated and supervised and subject to periodic examination by a State or Federal agency.
( c ) *Excluded information.* Any statements or information certified to by a bank or similar institution or insurance carrier described in paragraph (b) of this section, provided that the statements or information regarding assets so held are prepared and certified to by the bank or insurance carrier in accordance with § 2520.103-5.
§ 1902.18 Previous hearing or other opportunity for comment on plan. ( a ) Whenever an informal hearing has been held under §§ 1902.11 and 1902.13, any evidence submitted in such a hearing shall be considered and may be relied upon whenever it is found that no party will be prejudiced thereby because ( 1 ) Of a lack of an opportunity for cross-examination afforded in the informal hearing on the issues involved, or
( 2 ) The veracity and demeanor of witnesses are not important with respect to the type of evidence involved (e.g., extensive technical or statistical data), or
( 3 ) For any other reason.
( b ) Any written comments received in response to a notice issued under § 1902.11 shall be a part of the record of the proceeding.
( c ) Whenever a formal hearing has been held under § 1902.14 the Assistant Secretary shall hold no additional hearing, and shall proceed to issue a tentative decision under § 1902.21.
§ 1902.52 Decision. ( a ) After consideration of all relevant information which has been presented, the Assistant Secretary shall issue a decision on the continuation or revocation of the affirmative 18(e) determination.
( b ) The decision revoking the determination shall also reflect the Assistant Secretary's determination that concurrent Federal enforcement and standards authority will be reinstated within the State for a reasonable time until he has withdrawn his approval of the plan, or any separable portion thereof, pursuant to part 1955 of this chapter or he has determined that the State has met the criteria for an 18(e) determination pursuant to the applicable procedures of this subpart.
[No. 20797-8-III.

Division Three.

October 17, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Parentage of*Ashley C. Hilborn. Sherri Hilborn, *Petitioner,*v. David Bonga, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 01-5-00237-1, Linda G. Tompkins, J., entered December 20, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, J., concurred in by Schultheis and Kurtz, JJ. Now published at 114 Wn. App. 275.
**Exhibit 23.1** **Consent    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**     The Board of Directors    FairPoint Communications, Inc:     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration    statement    (No. 333-141825)    on    Form S-4,    in the registration statement    (No. 333-122809)    on    Form S-8,    and in the registration statements (Nos.    333-127759    and    333-127760)    on    Form S-3    of FairPoint Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries (the    Company), of our reports dated February 28, 2008, with    respect to the consolidated balance sheets of FairPoint    Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,    2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of    operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), comprehensive    (loss) income, and cash flows for each of the years in the    three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the    effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of    December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the    December 31, 2007 annual report on    Form 10-K    of FairPoint Communications, Inc.     Our report with respect to the consolidated financial statements    refers to the Company’s adoption of Financial Accounting    Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting    for Uncertainty in Income Taxes — an interpretation of    FASB Statement No. 109*, effective January 1, 2007,    and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS)    No. 123 (revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment,*effective January 1, 2006.     Our report dated February 28, 2008, on the effectiveness of    internal control over financial reporting as of    December 31, 2007, expresses our opinion that FairPoint    Communications, Inc. did not maintain effective internal control    over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007 because of    the effect of a material weakness on the achievement of the    objectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory    paragraph that states management oversight and review procedures    designed to monitor the effectiveness of control activities in    the northern New England division were ineffective. /s/  KPMG    LLP     Charlotte, North Carolina    February 28, 2008
WMT 10(o).1 1.31.15


Exhibit 10(o).1




AMENDED SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO HAVE EXECUTED A POST-TERMINATION AGREEMENT AND COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE IN THE FORM FILED AS EXHIBIT 10(p) TO THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF THE COMPANY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 2011 (this "Amended Schedule")
This Amended Schedule amends the Schedule of Executive Officers Who Have Executed a Post-Termination Agreement and Covenant Not to Compete that followed the form of Post-Termination Agreement and Covenant Not to Compete originally filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as Exhibit 10(p) to its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2011, as filed on March 30, 2011 (the "Form Agreement").  This Amended Schedule is included pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601(a) of Regulation S-K for the purpose of setting forth the details in which the specific agreements executed in the form of the Form Agreement differ from the Form Agreement, in particular to set forth the persons who, with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., were parties to Post-Termination Agreements and Covenants Not to Compete in such form at January 31, 2015.
	
			
	Executive Officer Who is a Party to such a Post-Termination Agreement and Covenant Not to Compete
	Date of Agreement
	Value of Restricted Stock Award Granted in Connection with Agreement

	Neil M. Ashe
	January 16, 2012
	Not Applicable

	Daniel J. Bartlett
	May 16, 2013
	Not Applicable

	Rosalind G. Brewer
	March 23, 2010
	Not Applicable

	M. Susan Chambers
	March 15, 2010
	$1,000,000

	Rollin L. Ford
	January 19, 2010
	$1,000,000

	Jeffrey J. Gearhart
	June 11, 2013
	$1,500,000

	Charles M. Holley, Jr.
	March 24, 2010
	$1,000,000

	C. Douglas McMillon
	January 19, 2010
	$2,000,000

	Gregory Foran
	July 23, 2014
	Not Applicable

	Steven P. Whaley
	January 19, 2010
	$300,000






In addition, certain terms of the Post-Termination Agreement and Covenant Not to Compete, dated January 16, 2012, between Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Neil M. Ashe differ from those of the Form Agreement as necessary to address certain laws of the jurisdiction in which Mr. Ashe resides.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                          Jan-02-1995
<PERIOD-END>                            Dec-31-1995
<CASH>                                      274,177
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             1,379,259
<ALLOWANCES>                              1,019,409
<INVENTORY>                               2,042,880
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          2,811,351
<PP&E>                                    4,080,571
<DEPRECIATION>                            2,946,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            4,197,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     1,184,393
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                    613,472
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                2,399,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              4,197,862
<SALES>                                  15,374,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         15,916,449
<CGS>                                    10,634,364
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             6,578,423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (1,824,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 67,358
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (1,756,737)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           1,385,153
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (371,584)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.85)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex GUSMAN v *EMELY*

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No 986.

Decided July 5, 1930

Alfred Rothenburg, for State ex.

Mills & Fowler, Dayton, for Emely.

KUNKLE, PJ.

We assume this suit is brought under 12307 GC. which provides that:

> *“A*person claiming to be entitled to a public office unlawfully held and ex-cersied by another, by himself, or an attorney at law, upon giving security for costs may bring an action therefore.”

One of the conditions precedent for the bringing of an action of this nature is that plaintiff must give security for costs.

The petition does not show affirmatively that this provision has been complied with.

The petition, on its face, shows that the relator received the number of votes next to the number of votes cast in favor of defendant.

This averment in the petition shows that defendant received a larger number of votes than the relator and the defendant is exercising the power and duties pertaining to said office. The reasonable inference to bo drawn from this averment is that the defendant has qualified and is acting as such officer.

It nowhere appears in the petition that the relator was duly elected to the office, but on the contrary it affirmatively appears that the defendant received more votes than did the relator.

The rule is well settled in Ohio that before a person is entitled to maintain an action in quo warranto under 13307 GC to recover a public office he must show not only that he is entitled to the office, but also that it is unlawfully held and exercised by the defendant. 92 Oh St 428. The statement in the petition that the defendant , is not eligible to hold the said office is a’ mere legal conclusion.

We cannot escape the conclusion but that the petition fails to state such facts as show that the relator is entitled to the office or that the defendant is unlawfully holding the same. Upon a consideration of the averments of the petition we are of opinion that the demurrer is well taken and should be sustained.

Allread apd Hornbeck, JJ, concur.
§ 1691.10 Agency enforcement of unresolved complaints. ( a ) Upon EEOC's transmittal of a reasonable cause determination and notice of failure of conciliation under § 1691.9(b)(2) of this regulation, the referring agency shall determine, within thirty days, whether the recipient has violated any applicable civil rights provision(s) which the agency has a responsibility to enforce. The referring agency shall give due weight to EEOC's determination that reasonable cause exists to believe that title VII has been violated.
( b ) If the referring agency determines that the recipient has violated any applicable civil rights provision(s) which the agency has a responsibility to enforce, the agency shall so notify the complainant and the recipient and determine whether further efforts to obtain voluntary compliance are warranted. In reaching that determination, the agency shall give due weight to the failure of EEOC's efforts to resolve the complaint by informal methods. If the referring agency determines that further efforts to obtain voluntary compliance are not warranted or if such further efforts fail, the agency shall initiate appropriate enforcement proceedings under its own regulations.
( c ) If the referring agency determines that the recipient has not violated any applicable civil rights provision(s) which the agency has a responsibility to enforce, the agency shall notify the complainant, the recipient, the Assistant Attorney General and the Chairman of the EEOC in writing of the basis of that determination.