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

CERTIFICATIONS

     I, James J. Bazata, certify that: 

l.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Horizon Bancorporation, 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'14 and 15d'14) 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)	[Reserved.]

	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 quarterly 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 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 controls 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: August 9, 2004.

/S/ James J. Bazata
----

Commission notice pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Amendment of public service obligations imposed on certain scheduled air services within Portugal

(2004/C 248/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

ANNEX I

Minimum overall seating capacity

Minimum overall cargo capacity

----

ANNEX II

Maximum cargo tariffs

----
#### § 458.79 Burden of proof.

In a hearing concerning an alleged violation of § 458.2 (Bill of rights of members of labor organizations) or § 458.37 (Prohibition of certain discipline), the complainant shall have the burden of proving the allegations of the complaint by a preponderance of the evidence. In a hearing concerning an alleged violation of §§ 458.26-458.30, the Chief, DOE shall have the burden of proving the allegations of the complaint by a preponderance of the evidence. In a hearing concerning an alleged violation of other standards of conduct matters, the District Director shall have the burden of proving the allegations of the complaint by a preponderance of the evidence.

[45 FR 15158, Mar. 7, 1980. Redesignated and amended at 50 FR 31311, 31313, Aug. 1, 1985; 59 FR 15117, Mar. 31, 1994; 62 FR 6094, Feb. 10, 1997]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20351]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The following notice of scheduled meetings is published pursuant to 
the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-
409, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Agency Holding the Meetings

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Times and Dates

    The Commission has scheduled meetings for the following dates:
    October 4, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
    October 18, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
    November 1, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.
    November 17, 2011 at 9:30 a.m.

Place

    Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC. Lobby 
Level Hearing Room (Room 1000).

STATUS: Open.

Matters To Be Considered

    The Commission has scheduled these meetings to consider various 
rulemaking matters, including the issuance of proposed rules and the 
approval of final rules. The Commission may also consider and vote on 
dates and times for future meetings. Agendas for each of the scheduled 
meetings will be made available to the public and posted on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov at least seven (7) days 
prior to the meeting. In the event that the times or dates of the 
meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the new time 
and place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: David A. Stawick, Secretary of the 
Commission, 202-418-5071.

David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-20351 Filed 8-5-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Title 129

- Department of Environmental Quality

Chapter 43

– VISIBILITY PROTECTION



### Effective Date 02/16/2008

001 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, part 51.301 (Definitions), as amended, is incorporated by reference. Appendix Y (Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule) of 40 CFR 51, is incorporated by reference.

002 The owner or operator of a stationary source shall submit a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination to the Department if the Department determines the stationary source is subject to BART according to 40 CFR 51, Appendix Y. The owner or operator shall prepare the BART determination in accordance with Appendix Y of 40 CFR 51 as directed by the Director. The owner or operator of a stationary source sh all submit the BART determination to the Department for review. The Department will issue a permit to the source, pursuant to section 003 , giving consideration to the source’s BART

determination.

003 The BART requirements for any BART

- eligible source tha t is subject to BART shall be incorporated into a construction permit in accordance with Chapter 17, section 014.04

.

Enabling Legislation: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§81

- 1504(1)(2); 81

- 1505(12)(16) Legal Citation: Title 129, Ch. 43, Nebraska Department of Environm ental Quality

www.DEQ.state.NE.US Home Page Security, Privacy & Accessibility Policy Nebraska.gov

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

1200 "N" Street, Suite 400

P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509 (402) 471

- 2186
[No. 28326-3-II.

Division Two.

November 8, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Phillip Anthony Weber, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 01-1-00792-9, Anna M. Laurie, J., entered November 30, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Quinn-Brintnall, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.
#### § 4044.16 Priority category 6 benefits.

The benefits assigned to priority category 6 with respect to each participant are all of the participant's benefits under the plan, whether forfeitable or nonforfeitable.
[No. 49627-1-I.

Division One.

December 2, 2002.]

#### Mohamed Ahmed, *Appellant,*v. Paradise Lakes Country Club, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 01-2-00398-1, Steven J. Mura, J., entered November 9, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,501
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 525,062
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                   774,678
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             17,500
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (257,116)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 525,062
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,325
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          (16,305)
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 60,673
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (76,978)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (76,978)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.13)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
[Civ. No. 2245.

First Appellate District.

October 24, 1917.]

#### SAMUEL A. MAYER, Respondent, v. ISAAC GOLDMAN, Appellant.

New Trial—Discretion—Appeal.—An order granting a new trial is largely a matter of discretion, and where the evidence is sharply conflicting, the exercise of the discretion will not be interfered with on appeal.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco granting a new trial. W. M. Conley, Judge Presiding.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

M. H. Wascerwitz, for Appellant.

Henry G. W. Dinkelspiel, for Respondent.

THE COURT.

In this action, after judgment for defendant for his costs, the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, which was based upon the grounds, among others, that the evidence was insufficient to justify certain findings, and that the court failed to find upon material issues. Defendant appeals.

As has been so often stated by appellate courts, the granting of a motion for a new trial or its refusal is largely a matter of discretion in the trial court, and where, as here, the evidence is sharply conflicting, the court may well, upon consideration of a motion for a new trial, take a different view of its effect than upon its first presentation, and arrive at the conclusion that its findings as made are insufficiently supported by it. With the discretion of the court thus exercised this court will not interfere.

The order is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of

HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1. Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (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 Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.

/S/ Charles S. ConoleyCharles S. Conoley
President and Chief Executive Officer

May 7, 2004
EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James A. Wylie, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Diomed Holdings,
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 the 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 controls 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.


Date:  November 5, 2004                       /s/ JAMES A. WYLIE, JR.
                                              -----------------------------
                                              James A. Wylie, Jr.
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              (Principal Executive Officer)
SECTION 32.0

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Bancorp of Indiana, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added by 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2003, 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                   /s/ Michael H. Head
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   Michael H. Head
                                   President and Chief Executive Officer


                                   /s/ George J. Smith
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   George J. Smith
                                   Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

Dated: February 11, 2005
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 9 

To recognize the heritage of the United States as a nation of immigrants 

and to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for more 

effective border and employment enforcement, to prevent illegal immigration, and to reform and rationalize avenues for legal immigration, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. 

STABENOW, and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To recognize the heritage of the United States as a nation 

of immigrants and to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for more effective border and 

employment enforcement, to prevent illegal immigration, 

and to reform and rationalize avenues for legal immigration, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Comprehensive Immi5 gration Reform Act of 2007’’. 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•S 9 IS

1 SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

2 It is the sense of Congress that the Senate and the 

3 House of Representatives should pass, and the President 

4 should sign, legislation to recognize the heritage of the 

5 United States as a nation of immigrants and to amend 

6 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 

7 seq.) to provide for more effective border and employment 

8 enforcement, to prevent illegal immigration, and to reform 

9 and rationalize avenues for legal immigration. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC75 with BILLS
§ 37.90 If a complaint is investigated, what must the Director do when the investigation is completed? At the conclusion of the investigation of the complaint, the Director must take the following actions: ( a ) Determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the respondent has violated the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIA or this part; and
( b ) Notify the complainant, the respondent, and the grantmaking agency, in writing, of that determination.
#### § 2.10 Scope and purpose.

This subpart defines the scope of audiovisual coverage of departmental administrative hearings. It describes the types of proceedings where such coverage is encouraged, defines areas where such coverage is prohibited (as in certain enforcement proceedings or where witnesses object) and areas where a decision concerning coverage is made after weighing the values involved in permitting coverage against the reasons for not permitting it.
#### § 37.80 What happens if a recipient fails to issue a Notice of Final Action within 90 days of the date on which a complaint was filed?

If, by the end of 90 days from the date on which the complainant filed the complaint, the recipient has failed to issue a Notice of Final Action, the complainant or his/her representative may file a complaint with the Director within 30 days of the expiration of the 90-day period. In other words, the complaint must be filed with the Director within 120 days of the date on which the complaint was filed with the recipient.
§ 1991.103 Filing of retaliation complaint. ( a ) *Who may file.* A covered individual who believes that they have been discharged or otherwise retaliated against by any employer in violation of CAARA may file, or have filed by any person on their behalf, a complaint alleging such retaliation.
( b ) *Nature of filing.* No particular form of complaint is required. A complaint may be filed orally or in writing. Oral complaints will be reduced to writing by OSHA. If the complainant is unable to file the complaint in English, OSHA will accept the complaint in any language.
( c ) *Place of filing.* The complaint should be filed with the OSHA office responsible for enforcement activities in the geographical area where the complainant resides or was employed, but may be filed with any OSHA officer or employee. Addresses and telephone numbers for these officials are set forth in local directories and at the following internet address: *http://www.osha.gov .* Complaints may also be filed online at *https://www.osha.gov/whistleblower/WBComplaint.html .*
( d ) *Time for filing.* Within 180 days after an alleged violation of CAARA occurs, any person who believes that they have been retaliated against in violation of CAARA may file, or have filed by any person on their behalf, a complaint alleging such retaliation. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, electronic filing or transmittal, telephone call, hand-delivery, delivery to a third-party commercial carrier, or in-person filing at an OSHA office will be considered the date of filing. The time for filing a complaint may be tolled for reasons warranted by applicable case law. For example, OSHA may consider the time for filing a complaint to be tolled if a complainant mistakenly files a complaint with an agency other than OSHA within 180 days after an alleged adverse action.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMES M. HANSEN,

Appellant,

v.

SHAWN MILLER, CRAFT MASTER CUSTOM POOLS, J. & J. HANSEN, 

INC., and REHANNON MILLER,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-2617

[May 5, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, 

Martin County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432018CA000398.

R. Scott Clayton of Linkhorst & Hockin, P.A., Jupiter, for appellant.

Jacob E. Ensor and Lauren A. Carroll of Ross Earle Bonan & Ensor, 

P.A., Stuart, for appellee Shawn Miller.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, LEVINE, and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.