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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

      I, Robert Malin, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of A.B. Watley Group
Inc.

(2) 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;

(3) 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;

(4) 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 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, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly 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 period covered by this
quarterly 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 officers 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 registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weakness 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 control over
financial reporting.


      Date: May 20, 2005                  /s/ Robert Malin
                                          ------------------------
                                          Robert Malin
                                          Title: Principal Financial Officer
From: cardorw@fidnet.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:07:23 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Carl Wilkinson

Rolla, MO 65401
From: gswift@wesco.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:52:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Gregory Swift

Oregon City, OR 97045
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7615

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CHARLES JEROME SIMPKINS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. M.J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-87-502-

MJG, CA-96-814-MJG)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 29, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Jerome Simpkins, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Perovich Gesner,

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)

and his motion for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United

States v. Simpkins, Nos. CR-87-502-MJG; CA-96-814-MJG (D. Md. Aug.

9 and Oct. 11, 1996). 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
Docket Number FAA-2014-0491

Contact. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

Transport Canada Anthony Wan

(613) 952-4410

01/14/16 No Objections

Bombardier

Aerospace

Jason Hochstein

514-855-5000

X 59594

01/14/16 No Objections
| [Missing                Graphic Reference] |
|--------------------------------------------|

**Filed      Pursuant To Rule 433, Registration No. 333-124310**
** **

**$1,000,000,000**

**CATERPILLAR      FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION**

| **For                the Period: 6/5/2006 to 6/12/2006** |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
| **Coupon**                                               | **Interest** | **Maturity** | **Callable** | **Survivor's****Option** | **Price****1** | **Yield****2** | **Moody's** | **S&P** | **CUSIP** |
| 5.150%                                                   | Semi-Annual(†††) | 6/15/09 | NO | YES§  | 100.00 | 5.150% | A2 | A | 14911Q3C3 |
| 5.600%                                                   | Quarterly(††) | 6/15/13 | 6/15/08**  | YES§  | 100.00 | 5.639% | A2 | A | 14911Q3D1 |
| 6.000%                                                   | Monthly(†) | 6/15/21 | 6/15/09*  | YES§  | 100.00 | 6.076% | A2 | A | 14911Q3E9 |
| 6.150%                                                   | Semi-Annual(†††) | 6/15/26 | 6/15/10***  | YES§  | 100.00 | 6.150% | A2 | A | 14911Q3F6 |

*All      offerings are subject to prior sale.*
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

38 39 40 41



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/07 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 07 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
EXHIBIT 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-267717 and 333-270934) of Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation of our report dated February 16, 2024, relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.





/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Nashville, TN


February 16, 2024
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title
18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Excelsior Private Equity Fund II, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers
knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July
31, 2004 (the Form 10-Q) 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |  |  |                          |  |                                  |  | 
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------------ |  | -------------------------------- |  | 
|                         |  | 
|Date: September 20, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Douglas A. Lindgren 
|                         |  |  |  |                          |  | Name: Douglas A. Lindgren       
|                         |  |  |  |                          |  | Title:   Chief Executive Officer
|                         |  | 
|Date: September 20, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert F. Aufenanger
|                         |  |  |  |                          |  | Name: Robert F. Aufenanger      
|                         |  |  |  |                          |  | Title:   Treasurer              



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



25
1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1819

___________

City of Lake Ozark, Missouri; *

Wally Schrock; Robert Ashford; *

Michael Luby, *

* Appeal from the United States

Appellees, * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Robert Singleton; Justin Olsen, *

*

Appellants. *

___________

Submitted: January 18, 2008

Filed: September 15, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM. 

Robert Singleton and Justin Olsen appeal from the district court’s1

 adverse grant

of summary judgment on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the City of Lake Ozark,

Missouri, Wally Schrock, Robert Ashford, and Michael Luby. Having reviewed the

record de novo and considered the arguments raised by the appellants, we conclude
-2-

that the district court’s order contains no error of fact or law and thus should be

affirmed.

Singleton and Olsen also appeal from the dismissal without prejudice of Rudy

Rodriguez, whom they failed to serve within 120 days after filing the complaint. The

district court put Singleton and Olsen on notice that the complaint was subject to

dismissal and properly exercised its discretion when it sua sponte dismissed the

complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). See Norsyn,

Inc. v. Desai, 351 F.3d 825, 830-31 (8th Cir. 2003)(holding that the district court did

not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the case without prejudice because the

plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant within 120 days after filing the

complaint). 

Finally, we note that “[d]istrict courts have broad discretion to set filing

deadlines and enforce local rules.” Reasonover v. St. Louis County, Mo., 447 F.3d

569, 579 (8th Cir. 2006). Singleton and Olsen moved for leave to amend their

summary judgment response well after the completion of summary judgment briefing.

The district court granted their motion, but as a sanction for the delay in seeking leave,

it ordered Singleton and Olsen to pay any attorney’s fees incurred by the defendants

in preparing an amended reply. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f)(2) authorizes

the district court to impose such a sanction, and Singleton and Olsen will not now be

heard to complain that the district court’s order somehow prejudiced them when they

were granted leave to amend but chose not to do so.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

2:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 7, 2023.

# PLACE: 

The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

# STATUS: 

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.

                        In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at                         *https://www.sec.gov.*

The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.

The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;

Resolution of litigation claims; and

Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b.                    

Dated: August 31, 2023.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2023-19163 Filed 8-31-23; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 As of the date hereof, I, Eric Borrmann, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report of Plumtree Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Plumtree Software, Inc. By: /s/ Eric BorrmannName: Eric BorrmannTitle: Chief Financial OfficerDated: May 7, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided by Plumtree Software, Inc. and will be retained by Plumtree Software,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Frank C. Hoffman et al., as Administrators de Bonis Non of Joseph Hudson, Deceased, Appellants, *v.*The Delaware and Hudson Company, Respondent.

*Hudson*v. *Delaware & Hudson*Company, 142 App. Div, .920, affirmed.

(Argued February 28, 1912;

decided March 19, 1912.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 10, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for *533the death of plaintiffs’ intestate alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of defendant.

*James A. Leary*and *Edgar T. Brackett*for appellants.

*Lewis C. Carr*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Chase and Collin, JJ. Dissenting: Willard Bartlett, J.
1 COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

EDWARD DAVIS

,
Appellant

.

v.

THE CITY OF EL PASO, ONE GAS INC. DBA TEXAS GAS SERVICE, INC., MARTINEZ BROS. LANDSCAPING, LLC DBA MB KEYSTONE CONTRACTORS, AND WESTSIDE WELDING, INC.

,
Appellees. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 0 0 194

- CV

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2019DCV2406 )

O RDER FOR M EDIATION R EFERRAL

The Court has determined that this case is appropriate for referral to mediation pursuant to

T EX .C IV .P RAC .&R EM .C ODE A NN

. § 154.021, et seq. , and ORDERS this case referred to mediation.

Any objection to this order must be filed with this Court and served upon all parties within ten (10)

days of the date of this order. An objection untimely filed may be considered waived.

The Court further ORDERS that the parties shall, within twenty (20) days of this order, or

within ten (10) days of an adverse ruling on an objection, confer and attempt to agree upon a mediator

qualified under T EX .C IV .P RAC .&R EM .C ODE A NN

. §154.052. The parties shall notify the Court of2

the name, address, telephone and fax number of the mediator. If the parties are unable to agree upon

a qualified mediator, the parties are directed to immediately notify the Court in writing, and upon

receipt, the Court will enter an order reestablishing the appellate timetable.

The Court further ORDERS that the mediation be held within sixty (60) days of this order

and that the appellate timetable be suspended during such time. All parties or their representative

with full settlement authority shall attend the mediation process, with their counsel of record. The

mediator and parties shall file a report of the completion of mediation within forty

- eight (48) hours

of the conclusion of mediation advising the court of:

• full, partial, or n o resolution of the case;

• whether further negotiations are planned; and

• compensation paid to the mediator and by whom.

In the event no further negotiations are planned and there is no resolution, or a partial

resolution of the case occurs, the parties wil l file a motion with this Court requesting that the Court

issue an order reestablishing the appellate timetable. This motion will accompany the above

mentioned forty

- eight (48) hours report.

The Court further ORDERS , in the event of full resolution of t he issues in this case, that

the parties file a joint dispositive motion within ten (10) days of the conclusion of mediation.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9 t h day of November , 20 2 1

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.