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

ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.
                     CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael J. Schall, Chief Financial Officer of Essex Property Trust,
Inc., the general partner of the registrant Essex Portfolio, L.P., certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Essex Portfolio,
L.P.;
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;

1. 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;
2. The general partner's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
3. 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;
4. 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
5. 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

1. The general partner's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the general partner's auditors and the audit committee of the
general partner's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

1. 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 data; and
2. 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.

August 9, 2004

By: /s/ MICHAEL J. SCHALL

Michael J. Schall
                  Chief Financial Officer
                  Essex Property Trust, Inc., general partner of
                  Essex Portfolio, L.P.

---
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 - Barbarin v. Scribner, Warden

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY BARBARIN,

Petitioner,

v.

A.K. SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent.

CIV S 04-0894 FCD KJM P

ORDER 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered thatrespondentmayhave untilOctober

29, 2005, to file his answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. If the response to the habeas

petition is an answer, petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days after

service of the answer. If the response to the habeas petition is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition to the motion shall be filed and served within thirty days after service

of the motion, and respondent’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within fifteen days thereafter.

No further extensions of time will be granted absent exceptional circumstances. 

DATED: October 3, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00894-MDS Document 24 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 8658)

Entry Nos. 757343; 768359; 775810.

#### Alltransport, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided September 26, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto: ^

> *515IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States concerning the merchandise referred to in the attached Schedule A, as follows:

> 1. Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases which, in *John P. Herber & Co. Inc.*v. *United*States, C. D. 1519, this Court held to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of articles.

> 2. At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers, in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, is the unit price as shown in the attached Schedule A, in U. S. currency, less the deductions from said unit price as invoiced, cases and packing as showD in said Schedule A, the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher.

> 3. The above reappraisements are abandoned as to all entries and merchandise not listed in the attached Schedule A, and said reappraisements may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved merchandise, and that such values were the unit prices as shown in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, less the deductions from said unit prices as invoiced, cases and packing as shown in said schedule “A.”

The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all other merchandise, to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed. Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Annual  Report of the X-Change  Corporation,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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/ Scott Thompson
Scott Thompson
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


April 5, 2007

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.
The foregoing  certifications  are accompanying the Company's Form 10-KSB solely
pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section  1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United  States  Code) and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0001052636
<NAME>    MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                   876,300
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               892,249
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 892,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,949
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    850,000
<COMMON>                                        26,300
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   892,249
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,897
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,897
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,897
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,897
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

3 October 2006

(2006/C 239/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 10, 2015 520740 

________________________________

In the Matter of the Claim of 

DOUGLAS E. BARDEN,

Appellant.

UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent.

COMMISSIONER OF LABOR,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 27, 2015

Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Douglas E. Barden, Ridgefield, Connecticut, appellant 

pro se.

Kane Kessler, PC, New York City (Robert L. Sacks of

counsel), for Union for Reform Judaism, respondent.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City

(Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for Commissioner of Labor,

respondent.

__________

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal

Board, filed June 16, 2014, which ruled, among other things, that

claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance

benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good

cause.

Decision affirmed. No opinion.
-2- 520740 

Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Ellis GHOLSON, a/k/a Sylvester Bradley, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-7443.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 13, 2001.

Decided April 16, 2001.

Larry Ellis Gholson, pro se. Damon A. King, Office of the Post Judge Advocate, Fort Monroe, VA, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Larry Ellis Gholson appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to clarify and alter the restitution order in his criminal case and denying reconsideration.* We find the appeal untimely and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed.R.App.P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (I960)). In a criminal case, a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within ten days of the entry of the order appealed. Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(l)(A)(i). The only exception is when the district court extends the appeal period pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 4(b)(4).

The district court entered its order on September 7, 2000; Gholson’s notice of appeal was signed and dated on September 28, 2000, which is beyond the ten-day appeal period. Gholson’s failure to note a timely appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period leaved this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Ghol-son’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal.

*108We 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.*

*

 If construed as motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000), Gholson’s motion would be successive and would require authorization pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp.2000).
No. 59534.

protests 178903-K, etc. (New York).

#### Adorence Co. et al. *v.*United States,

*336Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, Charles M. Kluck,
the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Amstar Financial Services, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


/s/ Charles M. Kluck
------------------------
Charles M. Kluck

March 5, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Registrant and will be retained by
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

 DCN: SE02973

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# Cover

# Table1

# Table 2

# Table 3

# Table4

# Table 5

# Table 6

# Historical Note
Before the Third Division,

November 10, 1954

No. 58508.

protests 159528-K, etc. (New York).

#### Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc., 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.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 3/8/2023 1

No Federal Relief from Long Lines 

Howard v. Currie 

(Bernard A. Friedman, E.D. Mich. 2:00-cv-74912) 

Having observed long lines in the morning on general-election day 

2000, a party and its presidential campaign sued for relief from expected long lines in the evening. The court denied relief. 

Subject: Poll hours. Topic: Polling hours. 

The Gore and Lieberman campaign, the Democratic Party’s state committee, 

and a Detroit voter filed a federal complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan on general-election day 2000 seeking relief from expected long evening 

lines at the polls in Detroit, alleging long lines in the morning.1 The Republican Party filed a motion to intervene as a defendant.2

The court assigned the case to Judge Victoria A. Roberts,3 but Judge Bernard A. Friedman heard the case from 7:14 to 8:30 p.m. on the day that the 

case was filed.4 Judge Friedman granted the motion to intervene and denied 

the plaintiffs relief.5 According to the Detroit Free Press, Judge Friedman 

“ruled that Detroit’s long lines were bothersome but not a denial of people’s 

rights to vote.”6 Radio stations erroneously reported that voting hours had 

been extended.7

1. Complaint, Howard v. Currie, No. 2:00-cv-74912 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2000), D.E. 1. 

2. Intervention Motion, id. (Nov. 7, 2000), D.E. 2. 

3. Docket Sheet, id. (Nov. 7, 2000); Complaint, supra note 1. 

4. Docket Sheet, supra note 3; see Detroit Denied More Hours, Detroit Free Press, Nov. 8, 

2000, at A13. 

5. Docket Sheet, supra note 3 (D.E. 8). 

6. Detroit Denied More Hours, supra note 4. 

7. See id.
Order entered October 21 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 01387
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF E .A.E., A Child On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366
- 30016
- 2009 

### O RDER By letter dated October 15, 2013 the Collin County District Clerk notified the Court that the clerk’s record in this case had not been filed because payment had not yet been received. Our records show that appellant, who is pro se and incarcerate d, filed a notice of appeal stating that he is indigent. Accordingly, we ORDER the Collin County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record within TEN DAYS of the date of this order. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 20.1(a)(3)

. Further, the reporter’s record is overdu e. This is a parental termination case. Thus, it is the responsibility of the court reporter to prepare, certify, and timely file the reporter’s record, if any, and the trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commence the preparation o f any reporter’s record. The trial court must arrange for a substitute reporter if necessary. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 28.4(b)(1).Therefore, we ORDER Niki Garcia, Official Court Reporter for the 366 th Judicial District Court, to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, either (1) the reporter’s record ; or (2) written verification that no hearings were recorded.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOCK MCNEELY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0062 DFL PAN P

vs.

LOU BLANAS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 3, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice that objections to the findings and

recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the

findings and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and

recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to

keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), 

service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

Case 2:04-cv-00062-DFL -PAN Document 55 Filed 07/25/05 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

2

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 3, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See L.R. 83-183(b).

Dated: 7/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

/mcne0062.802

Case 2:04-cv-00062-DFL -PAN Document 55 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 2
# Upcoming Events
No. 58968.

protest 248328-K (A) (New York).

#### Roberts, Reilly & Sons *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The motion to dismiss was granted.
From: Moulis, Charles

Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 2:33 PM

To: 'BishopRichardA@JohnDeere.com'

Subject: Emergency AECD Language

This is in response to your request regarding penalties for operators that misuse an emergency 

AECD on a nonroad engine. We expect to include regulatory text like the following to address 

such misuse:

§1039.665 (c) Required Information. Manufacturers producing engines equipped with an 

AECD approved under this section must communicate at least the following information in 

writing to the operator:

(1) Instructions for activating, deactivating, reactivating, reporting AECD use, and requesting 

resetting of the AECD.

(2) Warning that activating the emergency AECD for something other than a qualified 

emergency situation, failing to disable the emergency AECD after a qualified emergency 

situation has clearly ended, or failing to notify and report to the manufacturer as required 

under paragraph (e) of this section, are prohibited acts under federal regulations. The 

warning must also identify the maximum civil penalty for such violations, according to 40 

CFR 1068.101.

(3) Notification that the manufacturer will send the information from the operator’s report 

under paragraph (e) of this section to EPA and that federal regulation separately prohibits 

submitting false information. 

Note that the current maximum penalty would be $3,750 per violation.
## ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# \b5i~n

COA# 13-13-00128-CR 

### OFFENSE: 22.01 GARY PARKER v. THE STATE OF 

## STYLE: texas COUNTY: Nueces COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 148th District Court 

### DATE: 11/13/14 

### Publish: NO TCCASE#: 12-CR-2371-E (S2)



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS GARY PARKER v. THE STATE OF STYLE: TEXAS 

# hPPELL/{HTf> Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: p ^ / 2-S/2PJ'S~ JUDGE: 

# yA££t^^*t-^'i_ CCA#: 

# H*S2'(¥ CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### ELECTRONIC RECORD
OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

213) M-K-(I)-26 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

p.i 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:55 AM Sheet 213 of 325 
P.2 

A n 

II-K-(I)-26 

ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS 1978. VOLUME 1-3 AND 

SUPPLEMENT. 

U.S. Department of Energy. 

May 29, 1979. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-26
January 17, 1944

No. 49138.

Suit 4431.

#### United *States*v. *Dr. Oidtmann Studios, Inc. (Geo. Wm. Rueff, Inc.).*

C. D. 711 reversed. C. A. D. 260.