alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the annual report of Town and Country Appraisal Service, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John S. Chidester, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:  1) The 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Date: February 5, 2010 By: /s/ John S. Chidester John S. Chidester  Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41013

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

HELBER VALDEZ, also known as Helber Valdez Carrion

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:15-CR-208-1

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Helber Valdez was convicted of illegal reentry after deportation. When 

entering judgment, the court classified the offense as illegal reentry following 

a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 

(b)(2). The judgment the district court entered was consistent with the state 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 10, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41013 Document: 00514595724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2018
No. 15-41013

2

of the law at that time. Valdez’s Texas conviction for burglary qualified as an 

aggravated felony because it was a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). 

And we had rejected vagueness challenge to § 16(b). United States v. GonzalezLongoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Since that time, however, 

the Supreme Court has taken the opposing view and held that section 16(b) 

violates the Due Process Clause. Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018).

After deciding Dimaya, the Supreme Court granted Valdez’s petition for 

a writ of certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded for further 

consideration in light of that decision. Dimaya means that § 16(b) can no 

longer serve as a basis for classifying the prior offense as an aggravated felony. 

And the Texas burglary statute does not qualify as generic burglary, so that 

cannot serve as a basis for treating the prior offense as an aggravated felony. 

See United States v. Herrold, 883 F.3d 517 (5thCir. 2018) (en banc), petition for 

cert. filed (Apr. 18, 2018) (No. 17-1445). We reject the government’s request to 

hold this decision pending the petition for certiorari filed in Herrold. See 

United States v. Valle-Jaimes, No. 16-50993, 2018 WL 3634782 (July 30, 2018). 

In light of Dimaya, we therefore VACATE the district court’s judgment 

and REMAND for entry of judgment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) rather than

§ 1326(b)(2). 

 Case: 15-41013 Document: 00514595724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2018
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

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 Remington Oil and Gas Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J.
Burke Asher, Vice President/Finance (Principal Financial Officer) of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) |  | The 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. | 

/s/ J. Burke Asher

J. Burke Asher
Vice President/Finance (Principal Financial Officer)
August 2, 2002
From: tinabrunner@ymail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:19:08 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,

hugh brunner

Duncannon, PA 17020
|                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                                                    | 2015 |   | 2014 |   | 2013 |   | 2012 |   | 2011 |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit of consolidated companies                                        | $ | 461 |  |   | $ | 544 |  |   | $ | 527 |  |   | $ | 439 |  |   | $ | 389 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Add:                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Provision for income taxes                                              | 158 |  |   | 209 |  |   | 167 |  |   | 145 |  |   | 109 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes                                              | $ | 619 |  |   | $ | 753 |  |   | $ | 694 |  |   | $ | 584 |  |   | $ | 498 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                                                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                        | $ | 593 |  |   | $ | 631 |  |   | $ | 734 |  |   | $ | 801 |  |   | $ | 827 |  |
| Rentals at computed interest*                                           | 5 |  |   | 6 |  |   | 6 |  |   | 6 |  |   | 5 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total fixed charges                                                     | $ | 598 |  |   | $ | 637 |  |   | $ | 740 |  |   | $ | 807 |  |   | $ | 832 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes plus fixed charges                           | $ | 1,217 |  |   | $ | 1,390 |  |   | $ | 1,434 |  |   | $ | 1,391 |  |   | $ | 1,330 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of profit before income taxes plus fixed charges to fixed charges | 2.04 |  |   | 2.18 |  |   | 1.94 |  |   | 1.72 |  |   | 1.60 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
**Exhibit 23**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Boardof Directors 

Brink’s Home Security Holdings, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-154967) on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 24, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets ofBrink’s Home Security Holdings, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year periodended December 31, 2009, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Brink’s Home Security Holdings, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Dallas, Texas 

February 24, 2010
|               | (1)                                  | The      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 the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

|  Date:      August 14, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |                      |                     | /s/ Dirk A. Montgomery                                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                              |                      |      | Dirk      A. Montgomery                               |
|                                                         |                      |      | Senior      Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer |
From: rrperez_1@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:28:09 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,

Rod Perez

Saratoga, CA 95070
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00556-CV

IN RE David Allan EDWARDS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 16, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On September 3, 2015, relator David Allan Edwards filed a pro se petition for writ of 

mandamus complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on various motions in the underlying 

civil proceeding. The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 12-02-0185-CVA, styled David Allan Edwards v. County Court of 

Commissioners of Atascosa County, Texas, pending in the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas, the 

Honorable Thomas F. Lee presiding.
From: SBoyce1@cfl.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:40:47 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,

Stephen Boyce

Merritt Island, FL 32953
Before the Second Division,

July 3, 1967

No. P67/223.

#### Ottavia, Inc. *v.*United States, protests 304474-K, etc. (New York).

Rao, C.J. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consist of brass pole ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of J. C. DeJong & Co., Inc. v. United States (52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), and that the items of merchandise marked “B” consist of brass holders, portier hooks, portier brackets, curtain roses, portier hooks with sliplock holders, finials, curtain holdbacks with sliplock holders, sliplock holders and extension rods, and tie-back hooks, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver or colored with gold lacquer, chiefly used as household utensils, and following the principles in C.A.D. 852, supra, and Kroder Reubel Co., Inc., and Alltransport, Inc. v. United States (44 Cust. Ct. 274, C.D. 2186), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” covered by the foregoing protests consist of brass pole ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. 0. DeJong & Go., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), and that the items of merchandise marked “B” consist of brass holders, portier hooks, portier brackets, curtain roses, portier hooks with sliplock holders, finials, curtain holdbacks with sliplock holders, sliplock holders and extension rods, and tie-back hooks, not plated with platinum, gold, or silver or colored with gold lacquer, chiefly used as household utensils, and following the principles in C.A.D. 852, supra, and *Kroder Beubel Go., Ine.,*and *ATltransport, Inc.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 274, C.D. 2186), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATEED BALANCE SHEET, AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1998, AND CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1998,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,445,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   528,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,418,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,535,000
<PP&E>                                       7,780,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,766,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,979,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,692,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       120,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     440,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,979,000
<SALES>                                     23,373,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,373,000
<CGS>                                       15,507,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,507,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,787,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,428,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,349,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,349,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,349,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
No. P66/213. —

#### Balfour Guthrie & Co., Ltd., and Air Clearance Asso., Inc. *v.*United States, protest 64/6004 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of nylon gloves similar in use to silk gloves and that the issue is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. P69/86.

protest 65/23758 (New York).

#### The Specialty House, Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of rayon labels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., a/c Standard Commodities Import & Export Corp.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 27, C.D. 2409), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
20

 
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 14, 2008 /s/ Per Iversen   Per Iversen     Chief Executive Officer
21