alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**Rule 13a-14(a) Certification by the Chief Financial Officer**

I, Michael Schradle, certify that: 

          1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Micro Linear 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 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 registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; 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 registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 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: August   16, 2006 |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   |                    |   |
|   | By:                     | /s/ Michael   W. Schradle |
|   |                    |  |
|   |                    | Michael W.   Schradle |
|   |                    | Chief   Financial Officer   (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
No. 67166.

protest 60/23207 (New York).

#### Richard S. Reade *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

Since the protest was filed before the date of liquidation, it was dismissed by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 68670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22055]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-683 and 731-TA-1594-1596 (Final)]


Paper File Folders From China, India, and Vietnam; Cancellation 
of Hearing for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: September 28, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Calvin Chang ((202) 205-3062), Office 
of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street 
SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 
information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal 
on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need 
special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact 
the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information 
concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its 
internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these 
investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket 
(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 17, 2023, the Commission established 
a schedule for the final phase of the antidumping and countervailing 
duty investigations (88 FR 37579, June 8, 2023). On September 27, 2023, 
counsel for Coalition of Domestic Folder Manufacturers filed a request 
to appear at the hearing. No other parties submitted a request to 
appear at the hearing. On September 28, 2023, counsel for the Coalition 
of Domestic Folder Manufacturers filed a request that the Commission 
cancel the scheduled hearing for these investigations and withdrew its 
request to appear at the hearing. Counsel indicated a willingness to 
respond to any Commission questions in lieu of an actual hearing. 
Consequently, the public hearing in connection with these 
investigations, scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 3, 
2023, is cancelled. Parties to these investigations should respond to 
any written questions posed by the Commission in their posthearing 
briefs, which are due to be filed on October 11, 2023.
    For further information concerning these investigations see the 
Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 
207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
    Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority 
of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 
pursuant to Sec.  207.21 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.
    Issued: September 29, 2023.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-22055 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 114 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 114

 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the transfer of Hong Kong to 
 the People's Republic of China not alter the current or future status 
              of Taiwan as a free and democratic country.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 1997

Mr. Torricelli (for himself and Mr. Brownback) submitted the following 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the Senate that the transfer of Hong Kong to 
 the People's Republic of China not alter the current or future status 
              of Taiwan as a free and democratic country.

Whereas Hong Kong was acquired by the United Kingdom in 1898 and leased from 
        China for 99 years;
Whereas the treaty through which the Hong Kong territory was leased from China 
        expired on July 1, 1997, at which time Hong Kong reverted to China;
Whereas no treaties exist between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan 
        which determine the future status of Taiwan, and, unlike Hong Kong, 
        Taiwan has been de facto independent since 1949;
Whereas the People's Republic of China attempts to apply to Taiwan the formula 
        commonly known as ``one country, two systems'' in an effort to annex 
        Taiwan to China;
Whereas the People's Republic of China has refused to renounce the use of force 
        against Taiwan and held military exercises in the Taiwan Strait in March 
        1996 in an attempt to intimidate the people of Taiwan in their first 
        presidential elections; and
Whereas the Taiwan Relations Act states that ``[i]t is the policy of the United 
        States to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other 
        than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the 
        peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to 
        the United States'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the transfer of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of 
        China does not alter the current and future status of Taiwan;
            (2) the future of Taiwan should be determined by peaceful 
        means through a democratic process in accordance with the 
        principle of self-determination, as outlined in the Charter of 
        the United Nations; and
            (3) the United States should assist in the defense of 
        Taiwan in case of threats or military attack by the People's 
        Republic of China against Taiwan.
                                 <all>
```
Before the Second Division,

December 15, 1964

No. 68952.

#### Vanguard Military Equipment Co. *v.*United States,

protests 61/10409, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of military insignia similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 66583, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12

                                            ****CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED

                     Oracle / Intershop Reseller Agreement

                          Summary of Principal Terms


Parties:                 Oracle Deutschland GmbH
                         Intershop Communications GmbH

Date:                    October 15, 1998; extended through ****

Type of Agreement        Alliance Member (Reseller)

Products:                Oracle run time products sold as application specific
                         full use licenses. An application-specific full use
                         license is a restricted type of license sold by a
                         Solution Provider in conjunction with its Application
                         Package. Application Specific Full Use licenses may
                         only be used by the end-user to execute the Alliance
                         Member's application program.

Intershop Applications:  ****.

Royalty payable          Intershop or its Distributor will pay ****% of the list
                         price (without a discount) to Oracle. Intershop will
                         give 90 days' notice to Oracle of any change in the
                         Intershop price list.

Quarterly Reports        Intershop will provide quarterly sales and royalty
                         reports to Oracle.

Limitations              The use of the Oracle product is currently restricted
                         to **** CPUs (but can be any machine, not just
                         workgroup servers)

Modifications            The Oracle programs may be used in conjunction with an
                         Intershop application that has been modified or
                         customized provided the customizations and
                         modifications remain within the scope of the Intershop
                         application. For example, if the Alliance Member's
                         application is defined as a financial application,
                         which manages accounts payable, accounts receivable,
                         and generates invoices, the application could not be
                         modified to include a customized order entry module, or
                         a shipping and receiving module.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.53


                                     October 14, 1999


William J. Smith, III
INSpire Insurance Solutions, Inc.
300 Burnett Street
Fort Worth, TX 76102


Dear Bill:


     This is to confirm our discussions regarding our agreement to waive certain
notice provisions under your employment agreement dated April 28, 1998 with
INSpire Insurance Solutions, Inc. (the "COMPANY"). Section 8(c) of your
employment agreement provides that you may terminate the employment agreement
upon one (l) year written notice. Section 8(d) of the employment agreement
provides that the Company may terminate the employment agreement upon 180 days
notice. In view of the Company's decision to pursue strategic alternatives and
the inherent uncertainty regarding what, if any, alternatives may be pursued, we
have agreed that it would be appropriate to waive the notice requirements under
the employment agreement as described below.


     Accordingly, we agree as follows:

     A.   You agree that no notice of termination of employment may be given by
          you prior to January 1, 2000. After January 1, 2000, you may elect to
          terminate the employment agreement upon 7 days prior written notice to
          the Company. In the event that you elect to terminate the employment
          agreement by giving such notice, you will be entitled to the
          compensation upon termination as specified in Sections 3(c)(ii), 9(a)
          and 9(d) of your employment agreement.

     B.   After January 1, 2000, the Company may elect to terminate your
          employment agreement at any time upon 7 days written notice to you.

     C.   In the event of termination of your employment agreement by you or by
          the Company, you agree to resign as of the date of such termination
          any position you hold as a director or officer of the Company.


     Except as specifically described above, this letter shall not be deemed to
be a waiver or modification of any other provision of your employment agreement.


                                    INSpire Insurance Solutions, Inc.

                                    By: /s/  F. GEORGE DUNHAM, III
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        F. George Dunham, III, Chairman and CEO



Acknowledged and Agreed:

/s/ WILLIAM J. SMITH, III
--------------------------------
William J. Smith, III
From: rededwin54@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Too Much Government Meddling In People"s Lives:

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:12:52 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,

Cecil Wright

Lexington, KY 40503
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997             MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997             FEB-28-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                       2,339,000               2,339,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,267,000               2,267,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (343,000)               (343,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    244,000                 244,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,877,000               4,877,000
<PP&E>                                      18,936,000              18,936,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,203,000)             (4,203,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,098,000              34,098,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,583,000               6,583,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       283,000                 283,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,098,000              34,098,000
<SALES>                                      6,397,000              22,818,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,995,000              27,649,000
<CGS>                                        6,041,000              21,186,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,712,000              26,669,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             221,000                 694,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 62,000                 286,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    62,000                 286,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00                     .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00                     .00
        

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

October 31, 1966

No. P66/315. —

#### I. B. Cohen & Sons, Corp. et al. *v.*United States, protests 66/4621, etc. (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rubber bulb horns similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Sherwin*International, *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 466, Abstract 69382), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
KFS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0416

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SAMUEL WADE FRYDENLUND,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including January 21, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 15 2023

12/15/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0416
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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

TIMOTHY B. WHITMORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PIERCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5265RBL

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

 The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley

Arnold, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does hereby

find and ORDER: 

(1) Plaintiff’s “FRCP [sic] 59 Motion for an Amendment to the Judgment Rendered in

Dkt. 223 Regarding the Habeas Corpus Portion of the Complaint” [Dkt. #238] and

the amendments thereto [Dkt.#s 243, 244, 245] is considered as a motion for

reconsideration of this Court’s prior Order adopting the Report and Recommendation

dismissing plaintiff’s habeas corpus claims and, as such, is DENIED.

(2) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(3) Defendant Pierce County’s motion for summary judgment as to all remaining claims is

GRANTED.

(4) Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 

(5) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for defendants,

and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05265-RBL Document 252 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 1
No. 64606.

#### Capitol Distributors Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/20302, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.