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

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Robert L. Poley, Chief Financial Officer and Director, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this June 30, 2006 report on Form 10-Q of Heartland Oil and Gas Corp.;

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 flow of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this annual report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual 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 that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrants internal control over financial reporting;

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:

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
controls over financial reporting.



|                |  |  |  |                                                     
|--------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                |  | 
|August 16, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert L. Poley                                 
|                |  |  |  | Robert L. Poley Chief Financial Officer and
Director
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Modtech Holdings, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 9, 2005



/s/ DAVID M. BUCKLEYDavid M. BuckleyChief Executive Officer
#### Epps *v.*Miller.

Submitted July 18,

Decided December 13, 1906.

Foreclosure of mortgage. Before Judge Lewis. Jasper superior court. ,November 3, 1905.

*W. S. Florence,*for plaintiff in error. *G. F. Johnson,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

1. Affidavits accompanying the record sent to this court, apparently relating to newly discovered evidence which may have been submitted to the trial judge on the hearing of the motion for a new trial, but not incorporated in the motion nor referred to therein, nor in any way made a part of the record in the case, can not be considered.

2. There being no complaint that error was committed by the court on the trial, all the grounds of the amended motion for a new trial being merely amplifications of the general grounds of the original motion that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, -and there being ample evidence to authorize the verdict, it was not error to refuse a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
1

Filed 9/18/20 P. v. Moralez CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARIO MORALEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

A158710

(Sonoma County

Super. Ct. No. SCR724066)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

One evening in January 2019, police officer Eduardo Espino was 

dispatched to the Coddingtown Mall in Santa Rosa where a private security 

guard had arrested Mario Moralez for trespassing. Moralez had been told in 

writing that he was barred from access to the mall but the guard found him 

in the parking lot area. The guard handcuffed him and conducted a pat-down 

for weapons, finding a large kitchen knife measuring just over six inches 

secreted in the left pocket of his jacket.

Moralez was subsequently charged with two offenses: count one, 

possession of dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 21310), and count two, 

misdemeanor trespass (Pen. Code, § 602, subd. (t)(1)). Additionally, it was 

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no 

substantial issue of fact or law. (California Standards of Judicial 

Administration, § 8.1.)
2

alleged that he had suffered a prison prior conviction in 2013. (Pen. Code, 

§ 667.5.) Moralez pleaded no contest to count one, and the remaining

allegations were dismissed. He was then sentenced to a split term

(Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)), totaling 24 months, partially in custody and 

partially under mandatory supervision by the probation department. 

After a certificate of probable cause to appeal was denied on October 8, 

2019, Moralez filed a notice of appeal, proceeding pro se. His notice of appeal 

does not specify whether he seeks review of the judgment of conviction, the 

sentence, or some specific order entered prior to or after conviction.

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asking this court to 

conduct an independent review of the record to determine if there are 

arguable appellate issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 

(Wende).

The Wende brief filed by Moralez’s counsel does not draw our attention 

to any issues under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744. Moralez

was apprised of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he failed to file 

anything. Following Wende guidelines, we have conducted an independent 

review of the record summarized above and conclude there are no meritorious 

issues to be argued on appeal.

DISPOSITION

Moralez’s judgment of conviction, sentence, and all orders entered by 

the trial court in these proceedings are affirmed.

STREETER, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

TUCHER, J.

BROWN J.
**ATTACHMENT A**

**FY 2010 STATE PLAN GUIDANCE**

**INTRASTATE (IFF) FUNDING FORMULA REQUIREMENTS**

Each State IFF submittal must demonstrate that the requirements in Sections 305(a)(2)(C) have been met:

******OAA, Sec. 305(a)(2)

“*States shall,*

*(C) in consultation with area agencies, in accordance with guidelines issued by the Assistant Secretary, and using the best available data, develop and publish for review and comment a formula for distribution within the State of funds received under this title that takes into account‐‐*

*(i) the geographical distribution of older individuals in the State; and*

*(ii) the distribution among planning and service areas of older individuals with greatest economic need and older individuals with greatest social need, with particular attention to low‐income minority older individuals*.”

· For purposes of the IFF, “best available data” is the most recent census data (year 2000 or later), or more recent data of equivalent quality available in the State. 

· As required by Section 305(d) of the OAA, the IFF revision request includes: a descriptive Statement; a numerical Statement; and a list of the data used (by planning and service area). 

· The request also includes information on how the proposed formula will affect funding to each planning and service area. 

· States may use a base amount in their IFFs to ensure viable funding for each Area Agency but generally, a hold harmless provision is discouraged because it adversely affects those planning and service areas experiencing significant population growth.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 297 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Utah League of Cities and Towns. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2007 

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. BENNETT) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Utah League of 

Cities and Towns. 

Whereas the Utah League of Cities and Towns was created 

in 1907 as the Utah Municipal League to protect the interests of the municipalities of the State of Utah and to 

promote an active interest in municipal affairs; 

Whereas the Utah League of Cities and Towns was the 9th 

such State league created in the United States and was 

one of the earliest members of the National League of 

Cities; 

Whereas one of the primary functions of the Utah League of 

Cities and Towns during its early years was to organize 

and facilitate an annual convention, which remains a key 

function of the Utah League of Cities and Towns; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•SRES 297 ATS 

Whereas nearly 1,000 elected officials and staff from municipalities across the State of Utah attend the Utah League 

of Cities and Towns Convention each year; 

Whereas when the Utah League of Cities and Towns was 

formed, there were 375,000 residents of Utah and 83 

municipalities; 

Whereas nearly 2,500,000 people now call Utah home, and 

the large majority of these people live in the 243 cities 

and towns across the State; 

Whereas, in 1937, the Utah League of Cities and Towns reorganized, employed a full-time staff, expanded its legislative activity, and launched training and other service 

programs; 

Whereas the Utah League of Cities and Towns strives to 

maintain a strong unity among all Utah municipalities, 

promoting common interests among municipalities while 

recognizing each city’s unique differences; 

Whereas the Utah League of Cities and Towns helped to secure the bid, organize, and host the successful XIX 

Olympic Winter Games in 2002, and also helped promote 

a vision of the Olympic Games throughout the region; 

and 

Whereas, as the Utah League of Cities and Towns enters its 

2nd century of service, it remains committed to representing the interests of municipal governments with a 

strong, unified voice at the State and Federal levels and 

providing information, training, and technical assistance 

to the leaders of the cities and towns of Utah as they try 

to make life better for all Utahns: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•SRES 297 ATS 

1 (1) recognizes and honors the 100th anniver2 sary of the founding of the Utah League of Cities 

3 and Towns; and 

4 (2) expresses its appreciation for the efforts of 

5 the Utah League of Cities and Towns to promote 

6 civic responsibility and community interest during 

7 the past 100 years. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
##### 



LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF
THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATION
 AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2007
 COUNTRY OR STATE OFNAME
    
    INCORPORATIONLubrizol Advanced Materials FCC, Inc.
    
    USA  DelawareLubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc.
    
    USA  DelawareLubrizol Advanced Materials International, Inc.
    
    USA  DelawareLubrizol Advanced Materials Gibraltar, Inc.
    
    USA  DelawareLubrizol Overseas Trading Corporation
    
    USA  DelawareCPI Engineering Services, Inc.
    
    USA  MichiganLubrizol International Management Corporation
    
    USA  NevadaLubrizol Advanced Materials Europe BVBA
    
    BelgiumLubrizol Europe Coordination Center BVBA
    
    BelgiumLubrizol do Brasil Aditivos Ltda.
    
    BrazilLubrizol Canada Limited
    
    CanadaLubrizol International, Inc.
    
    Cayman IslandsLanzhou Lubrizol Lanlian Additive Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaLubrizol France SAS
    
    FranceLubrizol Holdings France SAS
    
    FranceLubrizol Deutschland GmbH
    
    GermanyLubrizol (Gibraltar) Limited
    
    GibraltarLubrizol (Gibraltar) Minority Limited
    
    GibraltarLubrizol Advanced Materials Asia Pacific Limited
    
    Hong KongLubrizol Advanced Materials Hong Kong Limited
    
    Hong KongLubrizol India Private Limited
    
    IndiaLubrizol Japan Limited
    
    JapanLubrizol (Gibraltar) Limited Luxembourg SCS
    
    LuxembourgLubrizol Luxembourg S.à r.l.
    
    LuxembourgLubrizol Advanced Materials Holland B.V.
    
    The NetherlandsLubrizol Southeast Asia (Pte.) Ltd.
    
    SingaporeLubrizol South Africa (Pty) Limited
    
    South AfricaLubrizol Adibis Holdings (UK) Limited
    
    United KingdomLubrizol Limited
    
    United Kingdom
§ 825.311 Intent to return to work. ( a ) An employer may require an employee on FMLA leave to report periodically on the employee's status and intent to return to work. The employer's policy regarding such reports may not be discriminatory and must take into account all of the relevant facts and circumstances related to the individual employee's leave situation.
( b ) If an employee gives unequivocal notice of intent not to return to work, the employer's obligations under FMLA to maintain health benefits (subject to COBRA requirements) and to restore the employee cease. However, these obligations continue if an employee indicates he or she may be unable to return to work but expresses a continuing desire to do so.
( c ) It may be necessary for an employee to take more leave than originally anticipated. Conversely, an employee may discover after beginning leave that the circumstances have changed and the amount of leave originally anticipated is no longer necessary. An employee may not be required to take more FMLA leave than necessary to resolve the circumstance that precipitated the need for leave. In both of these situations, the employer may require that the employee provide the employer reasonable notice (*i.e.,* within two business days) of the changed circumstances where foreseeable. The employer may also obtain information on such changed circumstances through requested status reports.
§ 127.1203 Gas detection. ( a ) Each waterfront facility handling LHG that transfers a flammable LHG must have at least two portable gas detectors, or a fixed gas detector, in the marine transfer area for LHG. Each detector must be capable of indicating whether the concentration of flammable vapors exceeds 30% of the Lower Flammable Limit for each flammable product being transferred and must meet IEC 60079-29-1 (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003).
( b ) Each waterfront facility handling LHG that transfers a toxic LHG, other than anhydrous ammonia, must have at least two portable gas detectors, or a fixed gas detector, available in the area. The detectors must be capable of showing whether the concentration of each toxic LHG being transferred is above, at, or below any Permissible Exposure Limit listed in 29 CFR 1910.1000, Table Z-1 or Z-2.
( c ) Each gas detector required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must serve to detect leaks, check structures for gas accumulations, and indicate workers' exposure to toxic gases in the area.
[CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39797, Aug. 3, 1995; 60 FR 49509, Sept. 26, 1995; USCG-2019-0444, 87 FR 5691, Feb. 2, 2022]
#### § 779.384 May qualify as exempt establishments.

Section 13(a)(9) of the Act as amended in 1966 exempts from the minimum wage and overtime pay requirements “any employee employed by an establishment which is a motion picture theater.” This exemption will be applicable irrespective of the annual dollar volume of sales of such establishment or of the enterprise of which it is a part. A motion picture theater may also qualify as an exempt retail or service establishment under section 13(a)(2) of the Act if the establishment meets all requirements of the exemption, discussed above in §§ 779.337 to 779.341. The term “motion picture theater” as used in section 13(a)(9) means a commercially operated theater primarily engaged in the exhibition of motion pictures with or without vaudeville presentations. It includes “drive-in motion picture theaters” commonly known as “open air” or “drive-in” theaters, but does not include such incidental exhibition of motion pictures as those offered to passengers on aircraft. “Legitimate theaters” primarily engaged in exhibiting stage productions are not “motion picture theaters.”
VERONICA VAZQUEZ

, Appellant,

v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1867

_____ ________________________/

Opinion filed July 22, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Frederic A. Buttner , Judge

. Veronica Vazquez, pro se

, Appellant.

Nancy M. Wallace and Michael J. Larson, of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee; William P. He ller, of Akerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File

Notice of Appeal, which is treated as a response to the order of April 28, 2014, the

Court has determined that its jurisdiction was not timely invoked. Accordingly,

the appeal is dismissed.

THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, J J

. , CONCUR.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

KATINA S. ROBINSON,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 393 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Alexander’s, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for quarter ended September 30, 2006**(the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|             |   |   |
|------------------|--------|--------|
| October 30, 2006 |   |   | /s/ Steven Roth |
|             |   | Name:  | Steven Roth |
|             |   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|                  |        |        |  |  |
Argued and submitted July 15, 1992,

affirmed February 3, 1993

#### In the Matter of the Marriage of Larry Leroy FINCHER, *Respondent, and*Roxanna Fae FINCHER, *Appellant.*

(15-90-07464; CA A72273)

845 P2d 1304

Susan J. Lax, Corvallis, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson,* Judges.

PER CURIAM

*

 Leeson, J., *vice*Buttler, J., retired.

*110PER CURIAM

Wife appeals from a dissolution judgment awarding husband the dependent tax exemption for their daughter. We review *de novo,*ORS 19.125(3), and affirm.

The dissolution judgment gave wife custody of the couple’s daughter, ordered husband to pay child support in the amount of $175 per month and awarded him the income tax dependency exemption for their daughter “provided that in doing so he complies with the applicable federal and state tax statutes and regulations.”

Wife makes only one assignment of error. She asserts that the trial court erred in awarding husband the dependent tax exemption, because “[t]he Oregon Court of Appeals has consistently taken the position that the state courts are without authority to allocate the federal dependency” to a noncustodial parent.

Wife is incorrect. *Stuart and Stuart,*107 Or App 549, 813 P2d 49 (1991); *Morris and Morris,*104 Or App 384, 801 P2d 875 (1990); *Richmond and Richmond,*103 Or App 55, 795 P2d 1104 (1990). The trial court may award the dependency exemption to either parent.1*Richmond and Richmond, supra,*103 Or App at 59; *see*ORS 25.280(9).

Affirmed.

1

 Mother does not challenge the amount of child support awarded. Therefore, we need not consider the effect of the court’s award of the exemption to father on the amount of child support under the guidelines. *See*ORS 25.280(9); OAR 137-50-330(2) (a).
ACL State Grants for Assistive Technology Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2018 Annual Allocation

5/16/2018

State/Territory

State Grants for 

Assistive 

Technology (SGAT)

Alabama $477,105

Alaska $448,950

Arizona $648,282

Arkansas $496,680

California $1,204,903

Colorado $501,972

Connecticut $432,259

Delaware $433,587

District of Columbia $390,481

Florida $772,871

Georgia $642,828

Hawaii $468,891

Idaho $443,721

Illinois $655,761

Indiana $509,553

Iowa $471,159

Kansas $431,216

Kentucky $497,933

Louisiana $526,343

Maine $481,348

Maryland $528,533

Massachusetts $551,064

Michigan $700,077

Minnesota $520,237

Mississippi $415,910

Missouri $586,719

Montana $462,967

Nebraska $476,712

Nevada $441,065

New Hampshire $449,192

New Jersey $526,437

New Mexico $465,408

New York $770,787

North Carolina $594,979

North Dakota $389,172

Ohio $611,257

Oklahoma $458,377

Oregon $452,625

Pennsylvania $742,294

Rhode Island $388,450

South Carolina $548,740

South Dakota $437,966

Tennessee $481,125

Texas $982,921

Utah $481,238

Vermont $424,720

Virginia $539,364

Washington $521,111

West Virginia $443,583

Wisconsin $500,699

Wyoming $380,794

American Samoa $125,628

Guam $127,011

Northern Mariana Islands $125,633

Puerto Rico $450,688

Virgin Islands $126,295

TOTAL $28,165,621