alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)
      (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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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
  (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.
  /s/ Mark J. DeCesarisMark J. DeCesarisActing Chief Financial Officer
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Robert Elmer Barber,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1844 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

McGregor W. Scott, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoNovember 28, 2005, petitioner requested an extension of time

to file and serve a reply. Good cause appearing, petitioner’s

request is granted and time is extended until 30 days from the

date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: December 13, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 32 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

January 21, 1944

No. 49151.

#### Petition 6225-R of F. H. Kaysing (St. Louis).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial the broker admitted that he inadvertently used an erroneous weight which later resulted in the assessment of additional duties for undervaluation. From the record the court was of the opinion that the entry was made in good faith and that the petitioner was without intention to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted. ' ’
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 27, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00861

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF J.C.W.G.

From the 454th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19

- 02

- 13115

- CR Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s second request for an extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on or before March 9 , 2020 ; however, no further extensions will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justi ce

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of February, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
April 19, 1961

No. 65493.

Suit 5028.

#### E. Dillingham, Inc. v. United States.

C.D. 2130 affirmed November 17,1960. C.A.D. 762.
Before the Second Division,

April 8, 1953

No. 57252.

protest 194883-K (New York).

#### British Industries Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of foil blades similar in all material respeets to those the subject of *Castello Fencing Equipment Co.,*Inc., and *Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 72, C. D. 1447), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FIBER OPTIC DESIGNS,

Appellant, 

v. 

DAVID J. KAPPOS, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, 

Appellee, 

and 

SEASONAL SPECIALITIES, LLC, 

Appellee. 

____________________ 

2012-1058 

(Reexamination No. 95/000,137) 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

MATTHEW W. STAVISH, Berenato & White, LLC, of 

Bethesda, Maryland, argued for appellant. With him on 

the brief was JOSEPH W. BERENATO, III. 

Coke M. Stewart, Associate Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia. 

With her on the brief were RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor, 

and NATHAN K. KELLEY, Associate Solicitor. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 August 14, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       9,988,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               98,473,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,424,000
<INVENTORY>                                117,400,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           237,792,000
<PP&E>                                     171,282,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              32,495,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             491,836,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      116,899,000
<BONDS>                                    150,835,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 32,900,000
<COMMON>                                     9,822,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 150,489,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               491,836,000
<SALES>                                    565,941,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           565,941,000
<CGS>                                      391,382,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              538,170,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,229,000<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          12,950,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             17,050,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,217,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         12,155,000
<DISCONTINUED>                             (1,700,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,455,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.21
<FN>
<F1>Includes Equity in loss of operations to be disposed of, $206,000.
</FN>


</TABLE>
No. 56452.

protests 141869-K, etc. (New York).

#### Glensder Textile Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the involved merchandise consist of woven silk fabrics, valued at more than $5.50 per pound, the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 210, C. D. 1326). Accepting the stipulation as a statement of fact and following the cited authority, it was held that the merchandise imported or withdrawn from warehouse prior to January 1, 1948, is dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 1205, as modified by T. D. 48316, and that which was imported or withdrawn from warehouse subsequent to said date is dutiable at 25 percent under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802.
# EUR-Lex - 52007DC0272 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007DC0272

**Report from the Commission to the Council Anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (PSF) originating in Malaysia and Taiwan /* COM/2007/0272 final */ **

*

*

[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 23.5.2007

COM(2007)272 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

Anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (PSF) originating in Malaysia and Taiwan

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

Anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of synthetic staple fibres of polyesters (PSF) originating in Malaysia and Taiwan

This report is made pursuant to Article 9.2 of Council regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1).

Article 9 of this Regulation stipulates the following:

"Termination without measures; imposition of definitive duties

1. Where the complaint is withdrawn, the proceeding may be terminated unless such termination would not be in the Community interest.

2. Where, after consultation, protective measures are unnecessary and there is no objection raised within the Advisory Committee, the investigation or proceeding shall be terminated. In all other cases, the Commission shall submit to the Council forthwith a report on the results of the consultation, together with a proposal that the proceeding be terminated . The proceeding shall be deemed terminated if, within one month, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, has not decided otherwise". (emphasis added) .

After consultations on the proposal to terminate the proceeding, objections were raised in the Advisory Committee. The proposal to terminate the case and the details of the consultation are set out in the annexes.

Annexes :

3. Summary of the opinions provided during and after the meeting of the Advisory Committee (transmitted only in English on a confidential (EU restricted) basis).

4. Draft Commission Regulation setting the reasons for terminating the proceeding in question (transmitted in all languages).
Exhibit 32(b)Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350     I, Mark J. Plush, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Keithley Instruments, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2007which this certification accompanies 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, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Mark J. Plush Mark J. Plush
No. 47889.

#### Protest 982189-G of New York Mdse. Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *New York Merchandise Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607) the brass base shells in question were held dutiable as parts of articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as signs, at 35 percent under paragraph 353 as claimed.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 2011

- NM

- 122

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
No. 61865.

#### Catherine T. Alonge et al. *v.*United States,

protests 302206-K, etc. (New York).

*535Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of condimento similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Paolo Alonge, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 351, C. D. 1886), the claim of the plaintiffs 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

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  filing of the  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter Ended  February 28, 2007 (the "Report") by
Dematco, Inc. ("Registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.       to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
         requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

2.       to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         results of operations of Registrant.


April 13, 2007                             By: /S/ ROB STEVENS
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Rob Stevens
                                               Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                               Financial Officer
No. 63102.

#### Stern & Stern Textiles, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/5980, 58/7450, and 58/6044 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of point d’esprit net the same in all material respects as that the subject of *E. C. Carter & Son, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 368, C.D. 1889), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Act of June 22, 1964, Sp.Sess., P.L. 84, art. IV, § 402, as 1

amended, Dec. 5, 1969, P.L. 316, § 1, 26 P.S. § 1-402 (repealed by Act of 

May 4, 2006, P.L. 112, No. 34, § 5(2), and superceded by 26 Pa.C.S.A. § 302).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

I&S ASSOCIATES TRUST,

Plaintiff

vs.

COUNTY OF LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA

 and

150 NORTH QUEEN STREET, CITY 

 OF LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action 

No. 05-CV-4846 

O R D E R

NOW this 17th day of July, 2008, upon consideration of

the Motion of Defendants County of Lancaster, Pennsylvania and

150 N. Queen Street to Dismiss Complaint Based on Lack of Subject

Matter Jurisdiction or, Alternatively, Motion for Abstention,

which motion was filed May 15, 2008; upon consideration of the

Answer of I&S Associates Trust to County of Lancaster’s Motion to

Dismiss, which answer was filed May 29, 2008; it appearing that

on December 15, 2004 the County of Lancaster, as condemnor,

initiated a condemnation action in the Court of Common Pleas of

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (case no. CI-04-11545), against

the property located at 150 North Queen Street, City of

Lancaster, Pennsylvania pursuant to Pennsylvania’s former Eminent

Domain Code; it further appearing that plaintiff I&S Associates 1

Trust initiated this federal action (civil action no. 05-cv-4846)

Case 2:05-cv-04846-JKG Document 44 Filed 07/18/08 Page 1 of 2
-iion September 9, 2005 by filing its Complaint for Appointment of

Board of Viewers; it further appearing that plaintiff never

removed the eminent domain action from the Court of Common Pleas

of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; and for the reasons expressed

in the accompanying Opinion,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion of Defendants County of

Lancaster, Pennsylvania and 150 N. Queen Street to Dismiss

Complaint Based on Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or,

Alternatively, Motion for Abstention is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that action is dismissed for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded to the eminent domain

action in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,

Pennsylvania (case no. CI-04-11545).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall

this matter closed for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James Knoll Gardner 

James Knoll Gardner

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-04846-JKG Document 44 Filed 07/18/08 Page 2 of 2
# C_2006303EN.01000801.xml

| 13.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/8

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.3436 — Continental/Phoenix

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001)

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 303/07)

On 12 May 2004 the Commission received notification, pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation, of a proposed merger by which Continental AG wished to acquire sole control over Phoenix AG, both undertakings being leaders on the rubber products manufacturing market.

Having examined the information submitted by the parties to the proposed merger and conducted a market survey, the Commission concluded that the merger raised serious doubts as to compatibility with the common market and the EEA Agreement.

Market participants were consulted about the effectiveness of the commitments proposed by the parties with a view to amending the original proposal, but these were considered to be not sufficient to prevent serious doubts. On 29 June 2004, therefore, the Commission initiated the procedure provided for by Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

On 3 September the Commission sent the parties a statement of objections. A CD-Rom was also sent to them, giving them access to the file. They replied to the statement of objections on 17 September 2004. They waived a formal hearing.

Following the replies to the statement of objections, the Commission continued to have doubts about the following markets: air springs for cars and utility vehicles and heavy steel cord conveyor belts. It dropped the objection concerning the market for rail vehicle air springs.

On 1 October 2004 the parties proposed further commitments amending the original merger proposal, about which market participants were also consulted.

In view of these commitments, and of the replies from market participants, it was considered that the merger could be authorised.

No questions have been addressed to me by the parties or third parties. The case calls for no special comment concerning the right to be heard.

Brussels, 20 October 2004.

Serge DURANDE

---
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Benjamin D. Territo,

Plaintiff, Civ. No. S-04-1460 MCE PAN P

vs. Order on Request for Counsel

Richard W. Sandham, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action. Plaintiff moved for

appointment of counsel on April 13, 2005. 

In proceedings that do not threaten a litigant with loss of

physical liberty, there presumptively is no right to appointed

counsel. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18,

26-27 (1981). Section 1915(e)(1) of Title 28 confers discretion

upon the court to request counsel represent an indigent civil

litigant. Mallard v. District Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989).

Case 2:04-cv-01460-MCE -EFB Document 35 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 3
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

In deciding whether to appoint counsel the court exercises

discretion governed by a number of factors, including the

likelihood of success on the merits and the applicant’s ability

to present his claims in light of their complexity. Weygandt v.

Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983); see also, LaMere v.

Risley, 827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987). Ordinarily the

presumption of regularity in the state’s procedures for confining

prisoners suggests a lack of likely success and counsels against

appointment of counsel. See Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887

(7th Cir. 1981). As a general rule, the court will not appoint

counsel unless the applicant shows his claim has merit in fact

and law. Id. Even if the applicant overcomes this hurdle, the

court will not appoint counsel if the law is settled and the

material facts are within the plaintiff’s possession, viz., they

do not require investigation outside the prison walls. Id. at

887-88. 

Here, plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were

violated when defendants denied plaintiff medications and snacks

necessary to control his blood-sugar level. The law governing

these issues is settled and investigation outside the prison

walls is unnecessary to discover material facts. There is, on

the record before the court, no reason to believe appointment of

counsel would be of significant benefit. 

Plaintiff’s April 13, 2005, second request for the

appointment of counsel therefore is denied.

So ordered.

Case 2:04-cv-01460-MCE -EFB Document 35 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01460-MCE -EFB Document 35 Filed 06/03/05 Page 3 of 3