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


I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify that:

        1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TGFIN
Holdings, Inc.;

        2.   Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
any untrue statements 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 represent 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

               a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
of this annual report (the Evaluation Date"); and

               c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

        5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

               b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

        6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated
in this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

     /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert      Chief Financial Officer
    --------------------------
         Scott Emerson Lybbert      August 3, 2006
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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

THE NAUTILUS GROUP, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC.,

 Defendant.

CASE NO. C02-2420RSM

ORDER DENYING SUMMARY

JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary that

the Crossbow Product Infringes Claim 12 of ‘057 Patent. (Dkt. #447). Plaintiff argues that the

Crossbow meets every element of the claim, and therefore, summary judgment is appropriate in

its favor.

The Court has already determined that the Crossbow does not contain rods with one

fixed end, and one free end, and the Court continues to rely on the reasoning set forth in that

Order. (Dkt. #519). As this Court has noted previously, if even one limitation of a claim is not

met by an accused device, either literally or by equivalents, there is no infringement as a matter

of law. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Systems/Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1321 (Fed. Cir.

2003). Accordingly, the Court finds that summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is not

appropriate on this issue.

Case 2:02-cv-02420-RSM Document 521 Filed 05/27/05 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PAGE - 2

Accordingly, the Court does hereby ORDER:

(1) Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #447) is DENIED.

(2) The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this _27__ day of May, 2005.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:02-cv-02420-RSM Document 521 Filed 05/27/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 63390.

protests 277838-K, etc. (Laredo).

#### J. W. Lewis *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that' the subject of *United States*v. *J. H. Brown et al.*(46 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 686), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 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 annual report of American Power Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alvaro Valencia, Chief Executive Officer and President 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 /s/ Alvaro ValenciaAlvaro ValenciaChief Executive Officer and President
 
 Date:  June 21, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE TREADCO,
INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000876948
<NAME> TREADCO, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,440,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,785,345
<INVENTORY>                                 28,288,924
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            61,259,367
<PP&E>                                      49,151,335
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,754,773
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             107,316,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       33,538,886
<BONDS>                                     13,810,320
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,723
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,766,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               107,316,347
<SALES>                                    121,116,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           121,116,399
<CGS>                                      122,724,524
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              122,724,524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               735,892
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,920,463
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             974,022
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,344,017)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (822,360)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,521,657)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,521,657)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)
        

</TABLE>
No. 58750.

protests 122841-K, etc. (New York).

#### Capitol Wine *&*Spirit Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

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.
No. 69341.

#### British Auto Parts and National Carloading Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 60/25314 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hand-operated windshield washers which are mechanical contrivances having movable parts for utilizing, applying, or modifying energy or force or for the transmission of motion, the claim of the plaintiffs 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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W.D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY STEELE,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5389

ORDER RE:

ALLEGATIONS OF

VIOLATION OF

CONDITIONS OF

SUPERVISION

THIS MATTER comes on for hearing on the Petition of the United States Pretrial Services

Office alleging that the defendant has violated the conditions of supervision.

The plaintiff appears through Special Assistant United States Attorney, Glenn Templeton;

The defendant appears personally and represented by counsel; Colin Fieman;

The U.S. Pretrial Services Office has filed a petition violations of the terms and conditions of

supervision, and the defendant has been advised of the allegation(s)and maximum potential sanction

if substantiated; and the court finding probable cause with regard to the allegation(s); the matter is

scheduled for hearing on the following time and date before the Honorable Karen L. Strombom.

Date: December 5, 2006

Time: 2:00 p.m.

( ) Defendant is released pending the above scheduled hearing.

( x ) Defendant is ordered detained for failing to show that he/she will not flee or pose a danger

to any other person or the community pursuant to CrR 32.1(a)(1), and CrR 46(c), to be delivered as

ordered by the court for further proceedings. .

The clerks shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the

defendant, the United States Marshal and to the United States Probation Office and/or Pretrial Services

Office.

November 30, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold_________________ J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05389-JKA Document 15 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7834

CARLOS CALDERON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus
BISHOP L. ROBINSON, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary, DPSCS; RICHARD A. LANHAM, individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner, DPSCS; ALVIN G. JOHNSON, individually and in his official capacity as Correctional Officer IV of the Maryland Department of Corrections at MTSC; RICHARD SINGLETARY, Security Chief; T. RUFFIN, CO III; T. BOWLING, CO IV, each individually and in their official capacities as officers of the Maryland Department of Corrections; WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden; HOLLIS S. THOMPSON, Asst. Warden; LUKE MONTGOMERY, CO V; ANDREW J. JOHNSON, CO IV; ALICIA SHELTON, CO IV; K. HAIRSTON, CO III; C. DORSEY, CO II; JOHN SANDERS, CO II; BARRY FLACK, CO I; L. BROWN, CO II; STEPHEN MCDONOUGH, CO I; S. KELLY, CO I; R. BROSEKER, CO II; G. LUTZ, CO V; T. JEFFRIES, CO VI, each individually and in their official capacities as officers of the Maryland Department of Corrections, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA96-3316-PJM)2 Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 20, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carlos Calderon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against all Defendants, but maintaining his claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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
1 The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-1509

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Joel Rio-Baena, * * [PUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 4, 2001 Filed: January 10, 2001

___________ Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Joel Rio-Baena pleaded guilty to transporting illegal aliens within the United States for commercial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (B)(i). At sentencing, the district court 1 enhanced his base offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(5), for having recklessly created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to the illegal aliens he transported. On appeal, Rio-Baena challenges the enhancement, arguing that the conditions in the van which he used to transport the-2-

aliens were not sufficiently egregious to warrant the enhancement, and that he should not be held responsible for those conditions because he was an illegal alien himself, who only drove the van to pay the fee demanded by the organizers for the trip. We reject Rio-Baena’s arguments and affirm.
While Rio-Baena may have been driving the van only to pay the fee for his trip, the fact remains that he knowingly agreed to drive 21 illegal aliens, 8 of them children, from Phoenix, Arizona, to Chicago, Illinois, crowded into the back of a cargo van without seats or seatbelts. Based on these facts, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in assessing the challenged enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1, comment. (n.6); UnitedStates v. Plumley , 207 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir. 2000) (reviewing district court’s factual findings for clear error); UnitedStates v. HernandezGuardado , 228 F.3d 1017, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 2L1.1(b)(5) enhancements upheldwhere defendants had driven vans with illegal aliens not strapped into seats with seatbelts, but lying unrestrained on floorboards and across seats); UnitedStates v. Moe , 65 F.3d 245, 250 (2d Cir. 1995) (finding defendant responsible for conditions on boat carrying approximately 300 illegal aliens, despite his contention that land-based defendants were responsible for number of passengers and conditions on boat; defendant voluntarily chose to be captain of boat, with full knowledge of conditions on boat from outset of voyage). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

TIMOTHY DUQUETTE,

 Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5454RBL

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of sufficient ties to the community.

 ( ) Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Other:

 (/) Defendant stipulated to detention without prejudice.

 

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 August 16, 2006.

___s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L Strombom, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cr-05353-RBL Document 9 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 1
III

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 263

To authorize the payment of the expenses of representatives of the Senate

attending the funeral of a Senator.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 30, 1998

Mr. WARNER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize the payment of the expenses of representatives

of the Senate attending the funeral of a Senator.

1 Resolved, That, upon approval by the Committee on

2 Rules and Administration, the Secretary of the Senate is

3 authorized to pay, from the contingent fund of the Senate,

4 the actual and necessary expenses incurred by the rep5 resentatives of the Senate who attend the funeral of a Sen6 ator, including the funeral of a retired Senator. Expenses

7 of the Senate representatives attending the funeral of a

8 Senator shall be processed on vouchers submitted by the
2

•SRES 263 ATS

1 Secretary of the Senate and approved by the Chairman

2 of the Committee on Rules and Administration.

Æ
No. 59822.

#### W. A. Gleeson *v.*United States,

protest 170926-K (St. Albans).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of beef similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.2


AMENDMENT TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





AMENDMENT NO. 1 dated as of March 7, 2011 (“Amendment”), to the AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT made as of July 19, 2007 (the “Employment Agreement”), by and betweenMDC PARTNERS INC., a Canadian corporation (the “Company”), and DAVID DOFT (the “Executive”).




WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Employment Agreement to provide for the amended terms and conditions set forth herein;




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth in this Amendment, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows:




1.           Capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning given to such terms in the Employment Agreement.




2.           Section 4(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended such that Executive’s “Base Salary” shall be increased to $375,000 (effective April 1, 2011).




3.           Section 7(c)(i) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following clause to the end of the first sentence therein: “, provided that such multiple shall be increased to 2.0, effective as of the Executive’s seven-year anniversary date of employment with the Company (July 19, 2014).”




4.           As used herein and in the Employment Agreement, the term “Agreement” shall mean the Employment Agreement, as from time to time amended (including, without limitation, this Amendment).  Except as set forth above, the Employment Agreement, as amended herein, shall remain in full force and effect without further modification.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, and each such counterpart shall be deemed an original instrument, but all such counterparts taken together shall constitute but one agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 1 to the Employment Agreement, on the day and year first above written.




MDC PARTNERS INC.By:
/s/ Barbara CreaghName:  Barbara CreaghTitle:    Executive Vice President/s/ David DoftDavid Doft
[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: Collecteddata reports on August 1972 solar-terrestrial events**
 
Parts: OneTwoThree
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.220:28
Item Number:0273-D-17 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000959803
 
July 31, 2018