alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Douglas W. Dougherty, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Marsh Supermarkets, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: June 29, 2006       /s/ Douglas W. Dougherty         Douglas W. Dougherty    Chief Financial Officer
(80 South. 158)

#### BRIDGEFORTH v. STATE.

(8 Div. 620.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 4, 1918.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1918.)

Criminal Law <&wkey;718 — Bemarks of Counsel.

Bemark of state’s counsel in bis closing argument, “My experience lias been that it is difficult to get evidence against a bootlegger; they always work and squirm to keep from testifying,” being a reference to a matter of common observation, was not prejudicial error; not being the statement of a substantive fact pertinent to the issue.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; B. C. Brickell, Judge.

Alice Bridgeforth was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and she appeals.

Affirmed.

W. T. Lowe, Callahan & Harris, and Wert & Lynne, all of Decatur, for appellant.

P. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMPOBD, J.

From the bill of exceptions, it appears that in open court, while the trial was in progress, and while the state’s counsel was making his closing argument, he made the following statement to the jury:

> “I don’t know what your experience is, but my experience has been that it is difficult to get evidence against a bootlegger; they always work' and squirm to keep from testifying.”

This remark of the solicitor, made in the! course of his address to the jury, was a reference in argument to a matter of common observation, and, if not entirely justified, was not the statement of a substantive fact' pertinent to the issue (Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476-484), nor do we think that the issues, the parties, and the general atmosphere of the ease were such as to render the remark prejudicial error (Moulton v. State [Sup.] 74 South. 454; 2 Birmingham Ry. Co. v. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 South. 80, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 543). The foregoing is not in conflict with the line of cases cited in appellant’s brief, but, as was said in Moulton’s Case, supra, “each case of this character must be decided on its own merits.”

We find no error in the record, and the judgment i« affirmed.

Affirmed.

2

199 Ala. 411.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 5/8/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

SONNY LAUREN HARMON,

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v.

STEVE HARGETT,

Respondent-Appellee. 

No. 95-6463

(W. Dist. of Oklahoma)

(D.C. No. CIV-95-429-C)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. 34.1.9. This case is therefore submitted

without oral argument.
1We grant the issuance of a certificate of probable cause to reach the merits in this

case.

2

Petitioner, a state prison inmate, appeals from the district court’s denial of his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner sought habeas

relief on the grounds that 1) his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by

the trial court’s restriction of his attorney’s cross-examination of the State’s witnesses; 2)

his right to a speedy trial was violated when the State was permitted to amend its

Information and the case was remanded for a preliminary hearing; 3) his Fourth

Amendment rights were violated by the trial court’s failure to sustain his motion to

suppress evidence obtained during an inventory search of his vehicle; 4) the trial court

erred by admitting fingerprint evidence for which no proper foundation was laid; and 5)

that the prior conviction used to enhance his punishment was too remote to be used to

enhance his sentence. The district court denied the petition and this appeal followed.1

Having carefully considered the record on appeal, we affirm substantially for the

reasons stated in the magistrate’s Report and Recommendation dated November 15, 1995.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of

Oklahoma is hereby AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
#### John P. Wagner v. William Steffin et al.

Filed November 21, 1893.

No. 5039.

1. Sale: Lien or Unrecorded Chattel Mortgage: Notice. One who purchases personal property with knowledge of a prior, unrecorded mortgage thereon, takes subject to the lien created by such mortgage.

2. Evidence examined, and *held*to sustain the finding that the plaintiff, who claims under a bill of sale of personal property, had actual notice of a prior, unrecorded mortgage thereon.

Error from the district court of Gage county. Tried below before Appelget, J.

*Griggs, Bmaker & Bibb,*for plaintiff in error.

*George A. Murphy, contra.*

*393Post, J.

The controversy in this case involves the proceeds of a crop of corn raised in the year 1888 by Eckel, a tenant of one Charles Stoll, on a farm owned by the latter in Gage county. The plaintiff claims under a bill of sale executed by Eckel October 30,1888, and filed for record November 10, following, while the defendants rely on the title of Stoll through an unrecorded written lease executed by the latter and Eckel May 15, 1888, in which it is provided that he, Stoll, shall have .a lien on all crops grown on said premises to secure the stipulated rental, viz., $250, on or before December 1, 1888, with power *“*to enforce the same as though he had a chattel mortgage with power of sale.” Subsequent to the execution of the mortgage above described Eckel gathered the corn and delivered it to the defendants, with the consent' of the plaintiff. After the delivery of the corn payment therefor was demanded by both the plaintiff and Stoll. Defendants elected to pay the money to Stoll on the ground that the latter was entitled to priority by virtue of his contract with Eckel, and accordingly refused to account to the plaintiff.

The first contention of the plaintiff is that he is entitled to priority as against the unrecorded lien of Stoll without regard to the question of notice. In that view we cannot concur. Prior decisions of this court have been uniformly to the effect that the provision relied upon (see. 14, ch. 32, Comp: Stats.) does not apply where the party seeking its protection is shown to have purchased with actual notice of a prior unrecorded mortgage. (See *Conchman v. Wright,*8 Neb., 1; *Gillespie v. Brown,*16 Neb., 461; *Earle v. Burch,*21 Neb., 702; *Railsback v. Patton,*34 Neb., 490.) As said in *Gillespie v. Brown,*the provision for the filing of a chattel mortgage was designed to give notice to the world of the liens thus created, together with the amount, terms, and conditions thereof, and not for the protection of *394purchasers who took with actual notice of all that the record would impart.

The only other question is the sufficiency of the evidence to show actual notice by plaintiff of Stoll’s lien. There is a sharp conflict in the proof on that point. The agent •for Mr. Stoll testifies positively that he personally notified plaintiff of the prior lien on the corn, while the latter as positively denies the notice. That issue was fairly submitted to the jury, and its finding is conclusive upon us. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 7
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 7 appear at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996.

§ 7.4 When to file. ( a ) Requests for review of wage determinations must be timely made. Timeliness is dependent upon the pertinent facts and circumstances involved, including without limitation the contract schedule of the administering agency, the nature of the work involved, and its location.
( b ) The Board shall under no circumstances request any administering agency to postpone any contract action because of the filing of a petition. This is a matter which must be resolved directly with the administering agency by the petitioner or other interested person.
§ 779.362 May qualify as exempt 13(a)(2) or 13(a)(4) establishments. ( a ) An establishment engaged in selling feed may qualify as an exempt retail or service establishment under section 13(a)(2) of the Act if it meets all the requirements of that exemption. Similarly an establishment making and processing the feed it sells may qualify as an exempt establishment under section 13(a)(4) of the Act if it meets all the requirements of that exemption.
( b ) In determining whether, under the 13(a)(2) exemption, 75 percent of the establishment's sales are not for resale and are recognized as retail sales in the industry, sales of feed to feeders will generally meet the requirements for such classification as previously explained in this subpart and will ordinarily be considered to be retail sales except for the following which do not meet the requirements and are not recognized as retail: Any sale of feed for shipment by railcar direct to the feeder; and sales made at a quantity discount which results in a price comparable to or lower than the establishment's price to dealers for resale or, if the establishment makes no sales to other dealers, at a price comparable to or lower than the price prevailing in the immediate area in sales by similar establishments to dealers for resale.
( c ) The custom grinding and mixing of feed (including the addition of supplements) for feeders from the grain they themselves bring in will be regarded as the performance of a service, and not the making or processing of goods for sale under section 13(a)(4). Such services are recognized as retail services in the industry and the revenue derived therefrom will be included with the retail receipts of the establishment.
( d ) Employees employed in the grinding and mixing of feed for sale (as distinguished from the grinding and mixing services discussed in paragraph (c) of this section) are engaged in the making or processing of goods and are therefore not exempt under section 13(a)(2). In order for these employees to be exempt, the establishment by which they are employed must meet all the requirements of section 13(a)(4), including the requirement that the establishment must be recognized as a retail establishment in the particular industry. The typical small feed mill engaged in selling goods to farmers appears to be recognized as retail in the industry. There are, of course, large mills which are essentially factories which are not so recognized. As an enforcement policy an establishment which qualifies for exemption under section 13(a)(2) will be considered to have met this requirement: ( 1 ) If less than 50 percent of its retail sales are composed of feed manufactured at the establishment; or
( 2 ) if its sales of feeds manufactured at the establishment do not exceed 2,000 tons a year. In determining these tests for the applicability of the exemption, the computation of the sales of feed manufactured will be made on an annual basis in the same manner as set forth in §§ 779.265 through 779.269 for the computation of sales.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00011

- CR

David Stuart Seelye

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1298254R)

February 25 , 2016

Per Curiam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
**Exhibit 15.1**

July 31, 2006

Alexander’s, Inc,.

Paramus, NewJersey

We have made areview, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim financial informationof Alexander’s, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended June 30, 2006 and2005, as indicated in our report dated July 31, 2006; because we did notperform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware thatour report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, is incorporated by reference inAmendment No. 3 to Registration Statement No. 33-62779 on Form S-3.

We also are aware thatthe aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared orcertified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountantwithin the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHELLPParsippany, New Jersey

----
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 

14, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-01049-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.L., A MINOR CHILD 

On Appeal from the 246th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-20727 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This is an appeal from a final order in a suit affecting the parent-child 

relationship and nunc pro tunc signed August 30, 2018. On February 8, 2019, 

appellant I.L.L. filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan, and Poissant
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Special Projects Advisory Panel (Research Section), to the National Council on the Arts will be held on June 12, 2000. The committee will meet from 1:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. in Room 716 at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20506, to assist in developing parameters for a national study of jazz artists in four cities.

The agenda will tentatively include: 

Discussion of the revised proposal and additional methodologies

Context—landscape for jazz artists in 4 cities

Definitions for the purpose of this study: What is jazz? What is a jazz artist?

Criteria for determining what is a jazz artist Response Driven Sampling (RDS) for interviews

Appropriateness of incentives for RDS

Kinds of analysis—context, data, comparisons, recommendations 

This meeting will be open to the public on a space available basis. Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory panels which are open to the public, and, if time allows, may be permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in attendance.

If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.

Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained from Mr. Tom Bradshaw, Office of Policy Research & Analysis, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5527.

Dated: May 26, 2000.

Kathy Plowitz-Worden,

Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.

[FR Doc. 00-13693 Filed 6-1-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21058]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated April 25, 2011, and published in the Federal 
Register on May 4, 2011, 76 FR 25375, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics 
Inc., Attn: RA, 100 GBC Drive, Mail Stop 514, Newark, Delaware 19702, 
made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic 
classes of controlled substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
Ecgonine (9180)............................  II
Morphine (9300)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to produce the listed controlled substances in 
bulk to be used in the manufacture of reagents and drug calibrator/
controls which are DEA exempt products.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., to manufacture the listed basic 
classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest 
at this time. DEA has investigated Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., 
to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public 
interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the 
company's physical security systems, verification of the company's 
compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's 
background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in 
accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted 
registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled 
substances listed.

    Dated: August 9, 2011.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-21058 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P