alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Clearwire Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included 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 periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 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; andc)
    
    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 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 function):
 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: March 25, 2009
    /s/ David J. SachDavid J. SachChief Financial Officer
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TOWNSEND DECL. RE 

PLS.’ MOT. FOR RELIEF - 1

(CV06-0204JCC)

The Honorable John C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JAMES S. GORDON, Jr., a married

individual, d/b/a

‘GORDONWORKS.COM’; OMNI

INNOVATIONS, LLC., a Washington

limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VIRTUMUNDO, INC, a Delaware

corporation d/b/a

ADNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM;

ADKNOWLEDGE, INC., a Delaware

corporation, d/b/a

ADKNOWLEDGEMAIL.COM; SCOTT

LYNN, an individual; and JOHN DOES,

1-X,

Defendants.

No. CV06-0204JCC

DECLARATION OF ROGER

TOWNSEND IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

RELIEF

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:

November 15, 2006

I, Roger Townsend, swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United

States of America to the following:

1. I am counsel of record for defendants Virtumundo, Inc. (“Virtumundo”) and

Adknowledge, Inc. (“Adknowledge”), am over age 18, and competent to be a witness. I

am making this Declaration based on facts within my own personal knowledge.

2. No depositions have been taken and no expert witness reports have been

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 45 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 1 of 2

Gordon v. Virtumundo Inc et al Doc. 45

Dockets.Justia.com
NEWMAN & NEWMAN,

ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP

505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610

Seattle, Washington 98104

(206) 274-2800

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TOWNSEND DECL. RE 

PLS.’ MOT. FOR RELIEF - 2

(CV06-0204JCC)

exchanged in this lawsuit.

DATED this 9th day of November, 2006, at Seattle, Washington.

_________________________________

Roger M. Townsend

Case 2:06-cv-00204-JCC Document 45 Filed 11/09/2006 Page 2 of 2
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: GreatBasin Native Plant Selection and Increase Project ... progress report.**
 
2002 | 2003| 2004 | 2005 | 2006| 2007 | 2008 | 2009
2010 | 2011| 2012
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.69/2:P 69/
Item Number:0079-D (online)
CGP systemNumber:000960952
 
August 14, 2018
No. 58693.

protest 199281-K (Philadelphia).

#### R. M. Bowden Smith *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the linoleum the subject of *United States*v. *Pacific Overseas Co., W. J. Byrnes & Co.*(42 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 559), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

CHIHULY, INC., and PORTLAND

PRESS, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

ROBERT KAINDL; BRYAN RUBINO;

ART GLASS PRODUCTION, et al.,

 Defendant.

 C05-1801 JPD

 

 MINUTE ORDER

The above referenced case has been initially assigned to the Honorable James P.

Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, subject to the consent of the parties pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1)(C).

On October 28, 2005, notice of the parties rights with regard to consenting to the

case being assigned to Magistrate Judge Donohue for all purposes was filed by the Clerk

of Court. The parties were advised they had until December 9, 2005, to consent, if they

wished.

In the interim, a Motion to Dismiss has been filed and noted for December 16,

2005. Accordingly, pending dates are adjusted as follows:

Case 2:05-cv-01801-JPD Document 20 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Consent to Assignment to Magistrate Judge Donohue DECEMBER 2, 2005

Pending Motion to Dismiss December 16, 2005

In the event the parties (or any party) choose not to consent, the case will be

reassigned to a District Judge.

Dated this 22nd day of November, 2005

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk of Court

by: /s/ PETER H. VOELKER Peter H. Voelker, Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01801-JPD Document 20 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION 

FOR REINSTATEMENT OF 

YOLANDA M. THOMPSON 

TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

*

IN THE COURT OF 

APPEALS 

OF MARYLAND 

Misc. Docket AG No. 77 

September Term, 2018 

ORDER 

 Upon consideration of the Verified Petition for Reinstatement filed pursuant to 

Maryland Rule 19-751 by Yolanda M. Thompson, an attorney not admitted to practice 

law by this Court but suspended from practicing in Maryland for sixty (60) days by an 

Opinion and Order dated December 14, 2018 and the response of Bar Counsel to said 

petition, it is this 24th day of April, 2019, 

 ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the petition should be, 

and hereby is, GRANTED; and it is further 

 ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court is directed, in accordance with Rule 

19-751(g)(2), to remove the petitioner’s name from the list maintained in this Court of 

non-admitted attorneys who are ineligible to practice law in this State and to certify that 

fact to the Board of Law Examiners and the clerks of all courts in the State. 

 

 /s/ Clayton Greene Jr. 

 Senior Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           9,144
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,840
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,695
<INVENTORY>                                     80,099
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,318
<PP&E>                                         138,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,398
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 312,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,480
<BONDS>                                        100,133
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                     148,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   312,085
<SALES>                                        337,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               337,385
<CGS>                                          259,608
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  327,353
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,473
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,557
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,916
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,916
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
        

</TABLE>
July 19, 1965

Reap. Dec. 11044.

#### Imbert Imports, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Reappraisements dismissed June 22, 1965.

Entered at San Juan, P.R. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiffs.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
**Section 1350 Certification by the Chief Financial Officer**
     I, Michael Schradle, the chief financial officer of Micro LinearCorporation (the “Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 ofchapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of myknowledge,
     (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 26, 2004 (the “Report”), complies with the requirements of section13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
November 10, 2004    /s/ Michael Schradle  Michael Schradle Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII 901 NORTH 5TH STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 September 23, 2011

Dear Owner/Resident: Nicholas Ferraguti Omaha, Nebraska 68108 1305 South 8 Street

1305 South 8 Street

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performe d on your property by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a signific ant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint co nditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the yardabove acceptable levels. Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 1305 Sou th 8 Street. The EPA has developed paint stabilization eligibility criteria that involve mea suring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fa ll to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessmen t, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint observed on structure surfaces was estimated and th e lead content in the deteriorated paint was measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument. The data obtained during the LBP assessment was use d to estimate the increase in soil lead concentration that would result if all of the deter iorating paint identified in the assessment were to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil wit hin six feet of the foundation of the structure. For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the ground surface within six feet of the foundation an d be uniformly mixed with the top one inch of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the so il potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP provides a measure of the severity of LBP deteriora tion on individual structures. The EPA uses these criteria to rank properties based on the pote ntial for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint stabilization is being offered at only those househ olds with the most severe LBP problems, particularly where children under the age of seven reside. Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the a bove criteria indicated that your house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization. RE: SAID: 124Enclosures

Para información en español, llame al EPA Informati on Center (402) 731-3045. Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts Project Coordinator Environmental Protection Agency If you have any questions or concerns, please conta ct the EPA Public Information Center at (402) 731-3045.
H. Res. 809 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 9, 2007. 

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3996) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes. All points 

of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 

those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall be 

considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions of the bill, 

as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 

amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on Ways and Means; (2) an amendment in the 

nature of a substitute, if offered by Representative McCrery 

of Louisiana or his designee, which shall be considered as 
2 

•HRES 809 EH 

read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally 

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; 

and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3996 pursuant to 

this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 

question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 

bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Ora V. Marek-Martinez <oramm@navajo-nsn.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:35 PM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Cc: dmallory@ResoluteEnergy.com; pflynn@ResoluteEnergy.com; dinetahdoo@yahoo.com

Subject: RE: NHPA Consultation - Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department

Thank you for contacting me, I am in receipt of your package and will review. Please note that we have 30 calendar days

for review.  

FYI‐ Ron Maldonado is no longer with HPD and I am the THPO.

Best,

Ora

Ora Marek-Martinez, PhD 

Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

Historic Preservation Department 

PO Box 4950 

Window Rock, AZ 86515 

Ph: (928) 871-7198 

Fx: (928) 871-7886 

From: Kelly, Shaheerah [mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 4:05 PM 

To: Ora V. Marek-Martinez 

Cc: timothy_begay@yahoo.com; rpm_crcs@yahoo.com; dmallory@ResoluteEnergy.com; pflynn@ResoluteEnergy.com; 

dinetahdoo@yahoo.com; Kelly, Shaheerah 

Subject: NHPA Consultation - Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department 

Good afternoon,

Please review the attached documents. Feel free to contact me for questions.

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly 

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Debt Ceiling Limit Issue

              																	United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking and Financial Services, 1995-2001					,	Poole, William, 1937 June 19-					 and 	One Hundred Fourth Congress, 1995-1997. 						*Debt Ceiling Limit Issue : Hearing Before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Second Session, February 8, 1996*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										February 8, 1996,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/720,			accessed on September 23, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
Before the First Division,

May 4, 1964

No. 68505.

protest 62/12188 (New York).

#### H. W. Robinson & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The collector’s additional memorandum showing that the applicable customs regulations have now been complied with, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: happy2672@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:45:53 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,

Linda Haptonstall

Columbus, IN 47201
#### Marvin Lewis CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patricia STANSBERRY, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-6517.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 18, 2005.

Decided Aug. 24, 2005.

Marvin Lewis Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*210PER CURIAM:

Marvin Lewis Carter, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Carter v. Stansberry,*No. CA-04-998-BO (E.D.N.C. filed Mar. 8, 2005 *&*entered Mar. 16, 2005). 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*