alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Clyde R. Wallin, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sipex Corporation;  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 to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date:  September 20, 2006 /s/ Clyde R. Wallin      Clyde R. Wallin   Chief Financial Officer and
2:15-cv-11619-GCS-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 07/23/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 55
2:15-cv-11619-GCS-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 07/23/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 56
2:15-cv-11619-GCS-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 07/23/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 57
2:15-cv-11619-GCS-DRG Doc # 15 Filed 07/23/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 58
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1435

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit the use of certain

agricultural byproducts in wine production.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 6, 1995

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit

the use of certain agricultural byproducts in wine production.

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

3 SECTION 1. USE OF OTHER AGRICULTURAL BYPRODUCTS

4 IN WINE PRODUCTION.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 5373 of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to wine spir7 its) is amended—

8 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as

9 paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively,
2

HR 1435 IH

1 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the follow2 ing new paragraph:

3 ‘‘(2) as determined by the Secretary, other agri4 cultural products or their residues,’’, and

5 (3) by adding at the end thereof the following:

6 ‘‘Wine spirits derived from other than standard

7 wines may not be used to fortify a natural wine.’’

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

9 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment

10 of this Act.

Æ
§ 42.03-35 U.S.-flag vessels and Canadian vessels navigating on sheltered waters of Puget Sound and contiguous west coast waters of United States and Canada. ( a ) In a Treaty between the United States and Canada proclaimed on August 11, 1934, the respective Governments were satisfied of the sheltered nature of certain waters of the west coast of North America. It was agreed to exempt vessels of the United States and Canadian vessels from load line requirements when such vessels engage on international voyages originating on, wholly confined to, and terminating on such waters. In Article I of this Treaty these waters are described as follows: “* * * the waters of Puget Sound, the waters lying between Vancouver Island and the mainland, and east of a line from a point 1 nautical mile west of the city limits of Port Angeles in the State of Washington to Race Rocks on Vancouver Island, and of a line from Hope Island, British Columbia, to Cape Calvert, Calvert Island, British Columbia, the waters east of a line from Cape Calvert to Duke Point on Duke Island, and the waters north of Duke Island and east of Prince of Wales Island, Baranof Island, and Chicagof Island, the waters of Peril, Neva, and Olga Straits to Sitka, and the waters east of a line from Port Althorp of Chicagof Island to Cape Spencer, Alaska, are sheltered waters * * *.”
( b ) U.S.-flag vessels and Canadian vessels navigating on the treaty waters on a voyage as described in paragraph (a) of this section are by virtue of this Treaty of August 11, 1934, not subject to load line requirements in 46 U.S.C. 5101-5116, the 1966 Convention, and the regulations in this subchapter. Vessels navigating these sheltered waters and passing outside their boundary on any voyage cannot claim the benefits of this Treaty and shall be in compliance with the applicable load line requirements in 46 U.S.C. 5101-5116, the 1966 Convention, and the regulations in this subchapter.
( c ) Since subdivision requirements apply to all passenger vessels subject to the 1960 International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, those passenger vessels navigating on the waters described in paragraph (a) of this section shall be in compliance with such 1960 Convention requirements and the regulations in part 46 of this subchapter. The Coast Guard issues to such a vessel a stability letter. The assigning authority is authorized to issue to such a passenger vessel an appropriate load line certificate, modified to meet the conditions governing her service assignment, and marking.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10051, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9011, June 5, 1969; USCG-1998-4442, 63 FR 52190, Sept. 30, 1998]
§ 298.24 Financing a Vessel more than a year after delivery. ( a ) We may approve Guarantees for a Vessel which has been delivered (or redelivered in the case of reconstruction or reconditioning of a Vessel) more than one year prior to the issuance of the Guarantees only if: ( 1 ) The issuance of the Guarantees would otherwise satisfy the requirements of the Act and the regulations in this part, and
( 2 ) The proceeds of the Obligation financing such existing Vessel are used to finance: ( i ) The construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning of a different Vessel within one year of that Vessel's delivery or redelivery, as the case may be, or
( ii ) Facilities or equipment pertaining to marine operations. Such facilities or equipment must be of a specialized nature, used principally for servicing vessels and in handling waterborne cargo in the close proximity of the berthing area, excluding over-the-road equipment (other than chassis and containers), permanent or semipermanent structures and real estate, as well as new or less than one year old.
( b ) At the Closing of Guarantees covered by this section, you must deposit the proceeds of the Obligation into an Escrow Fund established to pay for the cost unless you demonstrate to our satisfaction that all such costs have been paid.
Case 2:15-cv-12423-AJT-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 07/09/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:15-cv-12423-AJT-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 07/09/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:15-cv-12423-AJT-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 07/09/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:15-cv-12423-AJT-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 07/09/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:15-cv-12423-AJT-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 07/09/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:15-cv-12423-AJT-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 07/09/15 PageID.6 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:15-cv-12423-AJT-MJH ECF No. 1 filed 07/09/15 PageID.7 Page 7 of 7
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2449 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fraud and related activity 

in connection with purchases of certain wireless prepaid access devices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Mr. WEINER (for himself and Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit fraud 

and related activity in connection with purchases of certain wireless prepaid access devices. 

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 ‘‘Wireless Prepaid Ac5 cess Device Enforcement Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT. 

7 Section 1029 of title 18, United States Code, is 

8 amended as follows: 

9 (1) Subsection (a) is amended— 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2449 IH

1 (A) in paragraph (9), by striking ‘‘or’’ 

2 after the semicolon; 

3 (B) in paragraph (10), by inserting ‘‘or’’ 

4 after the semicolon; and 

5 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(11)(A) knowingly purchases and/or handles 

7 one or more wireless prepaid access devices for the 

8 purpose of, or as part of a scheme involving, modi9 fying, removing, avoiding or overwriting installed 

10 software which is designed to cause any such device 

11 to operate as a wireless prepaid access device on the 

12 wireless network or networks for which such device 

13 was sold, unless such purchase or handling is au14 thorized by the wireless service provider or device 

15 manufacturer; or 

16 ‘‘(B) knowingly engages in the unauthorized re17 sale or redistribution outside of the United States of 

18 any wireless prepaid access device that is sold to be 

19 used on a wireless network within the United States, 

20 whether or not the applicable software has been 

21 modified, removed, avoided or overwritten, whether 

22 individually or as part of a scheme;’’. 

23 (2) Subsection (c)(1)(A)(i) is amended by strik24 ing ‘‘or (10)’’ and inserting ‘‘(10), or (11)’’. 

25 (3) Subsection (e) is amended— 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2449 IH

1 (A) in paragraph (10), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

2 after the semicolon; 

3 (B) paragraph (11), by striking the period 

4 and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

5 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(12) the term ‘wireless prepaid access device’ 

7 means any access device that is marketed or made 

8 available for sale for use with prepaid or pay in ad9 vance commercial mobile radio service as defined in 

10 47 C.F.R. 20.3, but does not include installed-in-ve11 hicle access devices used in connection with an emer12 gency communications system.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Blanton, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Blanton*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 37.]

(No. 98-1339

Submitted October 13, 1998

Decided December 2, 1998.)

*Timothy A. Oliver,*Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Rachel A Hutzel,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

*Gray & Duning*and *Donald E. Oda II,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Cook*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### § 201.161 Exceptions to, and review by the Administration of initial or recommended decisions.

Within twenty (20) days after the service date of the initial or recommended decision, whether oral or in writing, unless a shorter period is fixed under § 201.54, any party may file exceptions to any conclusions, findings, or statements contained in such decision, and a brief in support of such exceptions. Such exceptions and brief shall constitute one document, shall indicate with particularity alleged errors, shall indicate pages of transcript and exhibit numbers when referring to the record, and shall be served on all parties pursuant to subpart D of this part. Whenever the presiding officer renders an initial decision, in the absence of the filing of exceptions thereto, or notice of review thereof by the Administration, such decision, shall upon the issuance of an appropriate order by the Administration, become the decision of the Administration. Upon the filing of exceptions to, or notice of review of, an initial or recommended decision, such decision shall become inoperative until the Administration determines the matter. Where exceptions are filed to, or the Administration reviews, an initial or recommended decision, the Administration, except as it may limit the issues upon notice or by rule, will have all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision. Whenever the Administration shall determine to review an initial or recommended decision on its own initiative, notice of such intention shall be served upon the parties within thirty (30) days after the date when the initial or recommended decision is orally rendered and, if in writing, served.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                      1,040,415
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,385,235
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               377,015
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,413
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,004,807
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,004,807
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,004,807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Lita Marie Bertuzzi, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/

Case No. 15-cv-11623 

Judith E. Levy 

United States District Judge 

Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti 

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [19], GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [14], 

DENYING THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17], AND REMANDING 

FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 

 This is a Social Security appeal. Before the Court is Magistrate 

Judge Patti’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 19) recommending the 

Court grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14) and 

deny defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 17.) The parties 

were required to file specific written objections, if any, within fourteen 

days of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d). No 

5:15-cv-11623-JEL-APP Doc # 20 Filed 09/07/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 430
2 

objections were filed. Accordingly, and on review of the Report and 

Recommendation, 

 The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 19) is adopted in full. 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14) is GRANTED. 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 17) is DENIED. The 

case is remanded to the Administrative Law Judge for further 

proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.1

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 7, 2016 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 7, 2016. 

s/Felicia M. Moses 

FELICIA M. MOSES 

Case Manager 

 

1 The parties, by failing to object to the Report and Recommendation, have waived 

any further right of appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 

1981). 

5:15-cv-11623-JEL-APP Doc # 20 Filed 09/07/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 431
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending December 9, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
P ursuant to 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5, the cour t has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 99-50572

__________________________

SYLVIE M., by next friend Diane R.; Diane R., Plaintiffs-Appellants

versus

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DRIPPING SPRINGS

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; ET AL

Defendants

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DRIPPING SPRINGS

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(A-97-CV-314)

___________________________________________________ May 05, 2000

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiffs-Appellants Sylvie M. and Diane R. (collectively,

“Appellants”) ask us to reverse the district court’ s reversal of

the State Education Hearing Officer’s decision that the defendantappellee (“School District”) did not provide a free appropriate

p ublic education (“FAPE”), and to reverse both the Hearin g

Officer’s and the district court’s rulings that Appellants are not

entitled to reimbursement for residenti al placement of Sylvie at

the Elan School because it was not appropriate for her disability.2

Appellants’ claims are grounded, alternatively, in the Individuals

with Disability in Education Act (“IDEA”) and the Rehabilitation

Act. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellants’

actions.

After carefully reviewing the material facts at issue in this

c ase, as reflected by the record and as related in br iefs of

counsel, and applying the appropr iate law to those facts, we

conclude that the district court did not commit reversible error in

holding, under the approp riate “essentially d e novo ” standard of

review, that the Individual Educational Plan (“IEP”) provided by

the schoo l district was in compliance with the appropriate

procedures and was reasonably calculated to enable Sy lvie to

receive educational benefits. Neither do we find reversible error

in the dist rict court’s determination that Sylvie’s unilateral

residential school placement by her parents was inappropriate and

thus not reimbursable

. S ee Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School

D istrict v. Michael F. , 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997); s ee also

Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R.

, 200 F.3d 341 (5th

Cir. 2000).

We conclude that the arguments advanced on behalf of

Appellants are insufficient to justify reversal of the district

court’s judgment, which, in all respects, is

AFFIRMED.
§ 28.325 Fire detection and alarm systems. ( a ) Each accommodation space must be equipped with an independent modular smoke detector or a smoke actuated fire detecting unit installed in accordance with 46 CFR part 76.
( b ) An independent modular smoke detector must meet UL 217 and be listed as a “Single Station Smoke Detector—Also suitable for use in Recreational Vehicles.”
( c ) The regulations in this section have preemptive effect over State or local regulation within the same field.
[CGD 88-079, 56 FR 40393, Aug. 14, 1991, as amended by USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48247, July 22, 2016]