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

# CERTIFICATION

I, DonaldMiller-Jones, Chief Financial Officer of Moscow CableCom Corp., certify that:

- I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form     10-Q of Moscow CableCom Corp.;
- Based on 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;
- Based on 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;
- 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for     the registrant and we have:

        a)       designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

        b)       evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and 

        c)       disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting; and;

- The registrant's other certifying     officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of     internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors     and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons     performing the equivalent functions):

        a)      all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  

         b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

| Date: January 18,  2005                                                              |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/       Donald Miller-Jones                          |
|            Donald Miller-Jones     |
|            Chief Financial Officer |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1301

JEROME JULIUS BROWN, SR., Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. MARGARET ANN NOLAN, Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cv-02969-WDQ)

Submitted: April 20, 2009 Decided: May 8, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties in a civil case are required to file the notice of appeal within thirty days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional.

Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on November 10, 2008. The notice of appeal was filed on February 18, 2009. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d). Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16788]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications Systems; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications 
System (1196).
    Date/Time: July 24, 2000-8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, Room 380, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Persons: Dr. Usha Varshney, Program Director, 
Electronic, Photonics and Device Technologies (EPDT), Division of 
Electrical and Communications Systems, National Science Foundations, 
4201 Wilson Blvd, Room 675, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 
306-1339.
    Purpose: To provide advice and recommendations concerning 
proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate research proposals in the 
Electronics, Photonics and Device Technologies program as part of 
the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are within exemptions 4 and 6 of 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 28, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-16788 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
§ 50-204.35 Application for variations from radiation levels. ( a ) In accordance with policy expressed in the Federal Radiation Council's memorandum concerning radiation protection guidance for Federal agencies (25 FR 4402), the Director, Bureau of Labor Standards may from time to time grant permission to employers to vary from the limitations contained in §§ 50-204.21 and 50-204.22 when the extent of variation is clearly specified and it is demonstrated to his satisfaction that ( 1 ) such variation is necessary to obtain a beneficial use of radiation or atomic energy,
( 2 ) such benefit is of sufficient value to warrant the variation,
( 3 ) employees will not be exposed to an undue hazard, and
( 4 ) appropriate actions will be taken to protect the health and safety of such employees.
( b ) Applications for such variations should be filed with the Director, Bureau of Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210.
TS-EMLA40

Attachment #3

Pt. 1, Sec. B

CAS Inventory Expert Servic e Reports and Chemical Struct ures of the New Chemical

Substances

The following page gives the CAS Inventory Expert Service (IES) Reports on the new chemical substances. The chemical structures of the compounds are also provided.
M A N D A T E

TO THE 65TH DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY, GREETINGS: 

Before our Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, on January 29, 2021, the cause 

upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

IN THE INTEREST OF J. A. V., A CHILD, Appellant,

No. 08-20-00181-CV and

, Appellee,

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

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes that there was no error in 

the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. 

It has been determined that Appellants are indigent for purposes of appeal; therefore, this 

Court makes no other order with respect to the payment of costs on appeal. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

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

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

obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

El Paso, this April 23, 2021.

Elizabeth G. Flores, Clerk

Trial Court No. 2019DCM5797

FILE COPY
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"17-2599: RDA CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BOWqJCNukk\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-12-2018-17-2599-rda-construction-corp-v-us-opinion-17-2599-opinion-10-12-2018\/\">17-2599: RDA CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-12-2018-17-2599-rda-construction-corp-v-us-opinion-17-2599-opinion-10-12-2018\/embed\/#?secret=BOWqJCNukk\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“17-2599: RDA CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"BOWqJCNukk\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: RDA CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. US [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 17-2599 Origin: CFC Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
unaudited  consolidated  balance  sheet of AT&T Corp.  at March 31, 2000 and the
unaudited  consolidated  statement  of income for the  three-month  period ended
March 31, 2000 and is qualified  in its entirety by reference to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         102
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,210
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,267
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,619
<PP&E>                                         67,737
<DEPRECIATION>                                 28,884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          30,713
<BONDS>                                        21,886
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          6,327
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,431
<OTHER-SE>                                     76,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173,682
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,836
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               284
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             555
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,051
<INCOME-TAX>                                     368
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,683
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,683
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.54


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2021-1532: Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies Oy - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"cqD7Uei4Ru\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-14-2022-2021-1532-apple-inc-v-mph-technologies-oy-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-1532: Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies Oy<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-14-2022-2021-1532-apple-inc-v-mph-technologies-oy-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=cqD7Uei4Ru\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-1532: Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies Oy” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"cqD7Uei4Ru\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies Oy (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-1532 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
No. 11-5104.

#### Knox *v.*Workman, Warden.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Comments on: Notice of New Federal Circuit Rules, Court Forms and Guides, Taxation of Cost Rates, and Scheduled Electronic Filing for Unrepresented Parties
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4200 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4200

  To amend chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
annuities for Members of Congress be computed under the same formula as 
    applies to Federal employees generally, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 1994

Mr. Goodlatte introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
annuities for Members of Congress be computed under the same formula as 
    applies to Federal employees generally, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. COMPUTATION OF ANNUITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 8415 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``or Member'' after 
        ``employee''; and
            (2) by repealing subsection (b).
    (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 8468(b)(1)(A) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``(a)'' and inserting ``(a) and 
(c)''.

SEC. 2. CONTRIBUTIONS.

    (a) Deductions From Pay.--Section 8422(a)(2) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``or Member'' after 
        ``employee)''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``Member,''.
    (b) Government Contributions.--Section 8423(a)(1) of title 5, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)(i) by striking ``subparagraph 
        (B)),'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B)) and Members,'';
            (2) in subparagraph (A)(ii) by inserting ``and Members'' 
        before ``(under'';
            (3) in subparagraph (B)(i) by striking ``Members,''; and
            (4) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``and Members''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; SAVINGS PROVISION.

    (a) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect as of the first day 
of the first applicable pay period beginning after the end of the 12-
month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Savings Provision.--Any annuity or portion of an annuity 
computed based on service performed before the effective date of this 
Act shall be computed in accordance with applicable provisions of law, 
as in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8211

HERMAN GADESON, a/k/a Herman Gadsen,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

REYNOLDS, Warden; JON OZMINT, Director; ROBERT WARD, 

Divisional Director all in their official and individual 

capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (2:08-cv-03702-CMC)

Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 26, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herman Gadeson, Appellant Pro Se. Christy L. Scott, SCOTT & 

PAYNE LAW FIRM, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Herman Gadeson appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The 

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised 

Gadeson that failure to file timely and specific objections to 

this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district 

court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Gadeson has waived appellate review by failing to file 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 

affirm the judgment of the district court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 60-741.41 Availability of affirmative action program.

The full affirmative action program, absent the data metrics required by § 60-741.44(k), shall be available to any employee or applicant for employment for inspection upon request. The location and hours during which the program may be obtained shall be posted at each establishment.