alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
(Chief Financial Officer)
       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.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;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; andd.
    
    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 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 control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.
    
    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:  August 27, 2009
    /s/ M.C. MackeyM.C. MackeyChief Financial Officer
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Notice is hereby given that the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), acting in accordance with the provisions of M .G.L. c 111, Sections 142A through 142N and Section 169A of the Clean Air Act, will hold public hearings on a proposed Revision to the Massachusetts Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) and on proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7.00 : Definitions and 310 CMR7.05: FuelsAll Districts. On December 30, 2011, MassDEP submitted a Regional Haze SIP to the U .S . Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval . The proposed Revision to the Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP will amend the December 30, 2011 SIP to address Best Available Retrofit Technology requirements and other emission reduction commitments for electric generating units. The proposed amendments to 310 CMR7 .00: Definitions and 310 CMR7.05: Fuels All Districts would lower the allowable sulfur content of distillate oil (i .e., home heating oil) and residual oil combusted at stationary sources to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, which contributes to regional haze and poses direct health impacts. After MassDEPfinalizes the amendments, it will submit them to EPAto be included in the Massachusetts Regional Haze SIP . Public hearings will be conducted under the provisions of M .G.L. Chapter 30A on: 

### Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 1 :00 p .m . Springfield Public Library 220 State Street, Community Room Springfield, Massachusetts Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 9:30 a.m . Department of Environmental Protection One Winter Street, 2"d Floor Atlantic Conference Room Boston, Massachusetts Testimony may be presented orally or in writing at the public hearings. Written comments also will be accepted until 5:00 PM on April 9, 2012. Written testimony must be submitted by email (preferred) or mail to :Glenn Keith Email : G1enn.Keith a,state .ma.us Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Prevention One Winter Street, 7`h Floor Boston, MA 02108 The proposed SIP Revision and proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7.00 : Definitions and 310 CMR 7.05: Fuels All Districts are available on MassDEP's web site at www .mass.gov/dep/public/publiche .htm . For special accommodations for these hearings, please contact Donald M . Gomes, MassDEPADA Coordinator, at 617-556-1057, TDDService 1-800-298-2207, One Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108 . This information is available in alternative format upon request. By Order of the Department Kenneth L. Kimmell Commissioner
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 227 (Monday, November 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 68640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9406]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee <greek-i>13883; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee 
(<greek-i>13883) meeting:
    Date and Time: December 19, 2006 4 p.m.-5:30 p.m. EST.
    Place: Teleconference. National Science Foundation, Room 1020, 
Stafford I Building, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA, 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. G. Wayne Van Citters, Director, Division of 
Astronomical Sciences, Suite 1045, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703-292-4908.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations to the 
National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on issues 
within the field of astronomy and astrophysics that are of mutual 
interest and concern to the agencies.
    Agencies: To discuss the Report of the National Science Foundation 
Division of Astronomical Sciences Senior Review Committee.

    Dated: November 21, 2006.
Susanne E. Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-9406 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2598

CAROL A. SANSONE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-96-397-A)

Submitted: April 28, 1998 Decided: June 9, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carole A. Sansone, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Neal Barkus, HUNTON

& WILLIAMS, Washington, D. C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Carol A. Sansone appeals a district court order granting Defendant summary judgment in an action in which she alleges breach

of contract and employment discrimination under Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e17 (1994). After reviewing the record, and the reasoning articulated by the district court in open court during summary judgment

proceedings, we find no reversible error and accordingly affirm the

district court order. We further deny Sansone's "Motion for General

Relief and for Expeditious Hearing" as moot. 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
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

To the Board of Directors 

First California Financial Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 333-144617 and No. 333-141391 and Form S-3 No. 333-156790) of our report dated March 30, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of First CaliforniaFinancial Group, Inc. and subsidiaries included in this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/    MOSSADAMS LLP 

Los Angeles, California 

March 30, 2009
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








In
      connection with the Annual Report of UFood Restaurant Group, Inc. on Form 10-KSB
      for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2007 (the “Annual Report”), as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, George Naddaff, Chairman and Chief
      Executive Officer, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant
      to
      Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
                Annual 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 this Annual Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
                of
                UFood Restaurant Group, Inc.





Date:
                April 14, 2008
            /s/
                George NaddaffGeorge
                NaddaffChairman
                and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

ROBERT WAGNER, : No. 98 MM 2019 

Respondent 

v. 

DAVID F. GOULD III, ESQUIRE, GOULD 

LAW ASSOCIATES, PC, ET. AL., 

Petitioners 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2019, the "Motion for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal One Day Late (Nunc Pro Tunc)" is DENIED.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

Convened January 5, 1993 

FIRST SESSION { 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Tuesday, September 14, 1993 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WALTER J. STEWART, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett, Executive Clerk 
Unanimous Consent Agreements 

Ordered, That the Majority Leader, after consultation with the Mmonty Leader, may 

proceed at any time to the nomination of Walter Dellinger to be an Assistant Attorney 

General (Ex. Cal. No. 288); and 

Ordered, That upon confirmation of the nominee, the motion to reconsider be tabled 

and the President notif ted of the action of the Senate. 

(Friday, July 30, 1993) 
Calendar I Treaty 

No. _ Doc. No. 

1 

TREATIES 

Subject Reported 

By 
2 

NOMINATIONS 

Calendar Message Nominee, Office, And Predecessor Reported 

• 

• 

No. No. Bv 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

288 306 Walter Dellinger, of North Carolina, to be Jul 22, 93 Mr. Biden, 

an Assistant Attorney General, vice Committee on the Judiciary. 

Timothy E. Flanigan, resigned. without printed report 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

321 363 Everett M. Ehrlich, of Pennsylvania, to be Aug 3, 93 Mr. Hollings, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Committee on Commerce, 

Affairs, vice Jose Antonio Villamil, Science, and 

resigned. Transportation, without 

printed report 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

326 191 Alvin P. Adams, Jr., of Virginia, a Career Aug 5, 93 Mr. Pell, 

Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Committee on Foreign 

Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Relations, without printed 

Ambassador Extraordinary and report 

Plenipotentiary of the United States of 

America to the Republic of Peru. .. •S1gntf1es nommee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of the Senate.
§ 2516.860 Will information on individual participants be kept confidential? ( a ) Yes. The Corporation will maintain the confidentiality of information regarding individual participants that is acquired for the purpose of the evaluations described in § 2516.840. The Corporation will disclose individual participant information only with the prior written consent of the participant. However, the Corporation may disclose aggregate participant information.
( b ) Grantees and subgrantees under this part must comply with the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section.
Exhibit 32.2



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERS

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Place Financial Corp.
(First Place) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David L. Mead, Chief Financial Officer of First Place, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 First Place.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                  |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|                  |  |  | 
|February 13, 2004 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    David L. Mead                 
|                  |  |  |  |  |  |                                      
|                  |  |  |  |  |  | David L. Mead Chief Financial
Officer





22
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

)

Proposed Final Audit Report on the )

Bartlett for Congress Committee )

CERTIFICATION

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election

Commission, do hereby certify that on July 16,2010, the Commission decided

by a vote of 6-0 to approve the Proposed Final Audit Report on the Bartlett for

Congress Committee, as recommended in the Memorandum from the Chief

Compliance Officer and the Audit Division dated July 12,2010.

Commissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McGahn II, Petersen, Walther, and

Weintraub voted affirmatively for the decision.

Attest:

I v(J IU <^X lAxi^w *v^ v\s i " "vi/vi. fi*t*~ l/^

Date Shawn Woodhead Werth f

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
### -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 36 38 40 42 

## ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/02 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 02 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■


## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●


## ★ ● ● ● ●
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.6


                                          February ___, 2001


GBI Capital Partners Inc.
1055 Stewart Avenue
Bethpage, NY  11714

            RE:   UNITY EMERGING TECHNOLOGY VENTURE ONE LTD.

Gentlemen:

      This letter will confirm the agreement of the undersigned, individually
and on behalf of his affiliates, to purchase (i) units ("Units") of Unity
Emerging Technology Venture One Ltd. (the "Company") being sold in the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO"), and (ii) class A warrants of the Company (the
"Warrants") underlying the Units, upon the terms and conditions set forth
herein. Each Unit consists of one share of common stock, par value $.0001 (the
"Common Stock"), of the Company and one Class A Warrant. The shares of Common
Stock and the Class A Warrants will not be separately tradeable until 90 days
after the effective date of the Company's IPO unless GBI Capital Partners Inc.
("GBI") informs the Company of its decision to allow earlier separate trading
(the "Separation Date").

      The undersigned agrees that this letter agreement constitutes an
irrevocable order for GBI to purchase for his account or for the accounts of his
affiliates up to an aggregate of (i) _______ Units at the IPO price of $6.00 per
Unit (the "Unit Purchase") and (ii) _______ Class A Warrants within the first
ten days after the Separation Date (the "Warrant Purchase"). The undersigned may
notify GBI that all or part of the Unit Purchase or Warrant Purchase will be
made by an affiliate who has an account at GBI and, in such event, GBI will make
such purchase on behalf of said affiliate; provided, however, that the
undersigned hereby agrees to make payment of the purchase price of such purchase
in the event that the affiliate fails to make such payment.

      The undersigned also agrees that the Unit Purchase may not be sold until
the earlier of six months following the completion of a business combination as
described in the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 (File No.
333-36754) or the Company's liquidation.

                             Very truly yours,


                             By:____________________
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Washington, D. C. 20463

OFFICE OF THE VICE CHAIRMAN

STATEMENT OF VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID M. MASON
AND
COMMISSIONER HANS A. von SPAKOVSKY
ON
FINAL AUDIT REPORT ON KERRY-EDWARDS 2004, INC.

The Commission voted today to approve, 5-0, a Final Audit Report on Kerry-Edwards
2004, Inc. and Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. General Election Legal and Accounting Compliance
Fund.' We write separately to address briefly the issue of “hybrid advertisements.” This issue
was raised in the Bush-Cheney ‘04. Inc. Final Audit Report, and addressed extensively in the
Commissioners’ separate statements.” Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. aired materially
indistinguishable “hybrid advertisements,” sharing the costs equally with the Democratic
National Committee, shortly after Bush-Cheney °04. Inc. and the Republican National
Committee did so.

In a previous statement. we explained why the Bush-Cheney/RNC advertisements were
consistent with Commission regulations and precedent and in complete compliance with the
Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”). Three of our colleagues disagreed, believing that the
50% - 50% cast allocation was contrary to Jaw.

For the same reasons expressed in our earlier statement, the Kerry-Edwards/DNC
advertisements were also consistent’ with Commission regulation and precedent. Had the
opposing view carried the day. the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign would today be deemed to
have improperly accepted over $11,000,000 in in-kind contributions from the Democratic

' The Audit Division’s report is available at hip: www. fec.gow agenda 2007 migdocl Epdf. The Commission
did not accept ail recommendations made by’ the Audit Division. and made four revisions at the table.

2 The Bush’Cheney ‘04 Final Audit Report is available at

hip: www. fee. gov: audits 2004 '20070322bush. cheney_compliance_04.pdf, The Statement of Vice Chairman
Mason and Commissioner von Spakovsky is available at:

pups www tee.vov-members-von_Spakovsky-speeches. statemem20070.
Lenhard and Commissioners Walther and Weintraub is available at:
burp: awww. tec. gov members. lenhard spec: s-statement2V07032 Lpdt. An additional Statement of Commussioner
Weintraub is available at: hup:| www.fec.zov members. weintraub/audits-statement20070322.pdi.

pdt. The Statement of Chairman



National Committee, and would now owe this amount to the U.S. Treasury. However, no such
repayment is due for these advertisements because the actions of the campaign and the DNC in
sharing the costs were in full compliance with the law.

May 31, 2007

Dae a WM acs

David M. Mason - Hans A. von Spakovsky -->
Vice Chairman Conimissioner
Rockingham,

No. 5460.

#### Francis E. Allen & *a. v.*Hampton.

Argued September 7, 1966.

Decided September 30, 1966.

*Shute & Engel*and *Francis J. Frasier (Mr. Frasier*orally), for the plaintiffs.

*Perkins, Holland & Donovan*and *Mr. William H. M. Beckett (Mr. Beckett*orally), for the defendant.

Wheeler, J.

Actions in case brought by Francis E. Allen and five other property owners against the town of Hampton, a municipal corporation, alleging that the defendant town was negligent in failing to properly maintain the municipal drainage system, as a result of which the plaintiffs suffered extensive water *378damage to their real estate and personal belongings.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss in each case alleging that no cause of action was stated and that the defendant town cannot be liable because of its sovereign immunity. These motions were denied and all questions of law raised by the defendant’s exceptions to the ruling of the Court were reserved and transferred by *Grant,*J.

It does not appear from the record before us whether the municipal drainage system was a public, governmental undertaking on the part of the defendant or one which was performed by it in its private, corporate capacity. In either event, however, it would be liable in this case on the count alleging negligence if the excessive water causing the damage resulted from defendant’s negligence. A municipality acts in a governmental capacity in the construction and maintenance of its highways and is ordinarily immune from liability for injuries caused by the negligent performance of such work. *Fournier*v. *Berlin,*92 N. H. 142, 144. An exception to this immunity exists, however, if the municipality, by the use of land which it holds only for public governmental purposes, such as a highway, negligently invades an adjoining owner’s property rights. *O'Brien*v. *County,*80 N. H. 522, 526. “For negligence in highway construction and maintenance within their borders municipalities are liable for resulting damage to neighboring property.” *Gilman*v. *Concord,*89 N. H. 182, 185. The damages paid to or the release given by the owner of land when a public highway is laid out includes “damages arising from its proper construction and maintenance, but not from negligent or unreasonable construction and maintenance.” *Hood*v. *Nashua,*91 N. H. 98, 101; *Wadleigh*v. *Manchester,*100 N. H. 277, 278.

A municipality may also perform acts as a private corporation, such as those which are “corporate or proprietary in nature,” *(Kardulas*v. *Dover,*99 N. H. 359, 360) or “for the local accommodation and convenience” *(Roberts*v. *Dover,*72 N. H. 147, 154), in which case, its liability for damages is tested by the principles applicable to private corporations. *Gates*v. *Milan,*76 N. H. 135, 136. If, the flooding in question resulted from acts of the defendant in its private capacity, it is liable for damages resulting from its negligent conduct of thatwork. *Resnick*v. *Manchester,*99 N. H. 436, 437; *Wadleigh*v. *Manchester,*100 N. H. 277, 278.

*379Defendant’s motions to dismiss were properly denied.

*Exceptions*overruled; *remanded.*

All concurred.