alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Daniel Johnston, Chief Financial Officer of United Components, Inc. certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Components, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly 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 presentedin this quarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which the report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.       Date: August 14, 2007 By: /s/ DANIEL J. JOHNSTON     Name: Daniel J. Johnston    Title: Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40377

Conference Calendar

 

DOUGLAS WAYNE BURKS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

ERNEST CHANDLER,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CV-40

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

December 11, 2002

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Douglas Wayne Burks, federal inmate #83737-079, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 

Burks was convicted on a guilty plea of possession with intent to

distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to 120 months’

imprisonment and five years’ supervised release.

Burks reiterates the challenges to his conviction that he

asserted in the district court. We review the district court’s
No. 02-40377

-2-

legal conclusions de novo. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827,

830 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 476 (2001). The

district court may entertain a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition that

challenges custody resulting from a federal sentence if the

petitioner satisfies the requirements of the 28 U.S.C. § 2255

“savings clause.” Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830. To do so, a

petitioner must show first that his claim is based “‘on a

retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes

that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent

offense.’” Id. (citation omitted). 

Burks has not identified a retroactively applicable Supreme

Court decision upon which he relies. Id. Accordingly, Burks has

not made the showing required to proceed under the savings clause

of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830, 831. The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
October 22, 1998 Volume II, Number 22

FAA-LICENSED LAUNCHES SET NEW RECORD

IN FY 1998

In Fiscal Year 1998, U.S. launch service providers

conducted a record 22 FAA-licensed launches, an increase

of 57 percent over FY 1997 and more than four times the

number of launches conducted five years ago. As many as

27 FAA-licensed launches are scheduled for FY 1999, an

increase of 23 percent over FY 1998’s record number of

launches. Through the end of FY 1998, there were 101

licensed launches since the first was conducted in 1989.

U.S. LEADS WORLD IN COMMERCIAL MARKET

U.S. commercial space launch providers captured 42

percent of the world market for commercial space

transportation in FY 1998, more than any other nation. Of

the 37 internationally competed launches conducted in FY

1998, U.S. providers conducted 16 (out of 22 FAA-licensed

launches); Europe’s Arianespace conducted 8; Russian

launch providers conducted 7; China’s Long March

conducted 5 commercial launches; and Ukraine conducted 1

launch of the Zenit rocket which failed. Non-internationally

competed launches conducted by U.S. providers and

licensed by the FAA included 3 ORBCOMM launches on

Pegasus, Lunar Prospector on an Athena 2, and the Geosat

Follow-On on a Taurus rocket.

U.S. COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

REVENUES TOP $1 BILLION

Revenues from FAA-licensed launches climbed above $1

billion for the first time in FY 1998 reaching $1.06 billion,

an increase of 39 percent over FY97 revenues of $764

million. Revenues for commercial launches from the United

States have increased by more than a factor of three in the

last five years, up from $336 million in FY94. Revenues for

FY99 FAA-licensed commercial space launches are

projected to be as high as $1.35 billion.

FAA LAUNCH AND SPACEPORT LICENSING ACTIONS

In FY 1998, the FAA issued nine launch operator’s license

amendments including four renewals, several amendments

for vehicle design changes, and the addition of Delta III to

Boeing’s existing operator’s license. The FAA also issued

launch site operator’s licenses to the Alaska Aerospace

Development Corp. to operate a launch site at Kodiak

Island, Alaska, and to the Virginia Commercial Space

Flight Authority to operate at Wallop’s Island, Virginia.

FY 1998 FAA-LICENSED LAUNCH VEHICLES

5

11 12

14

22

27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Number of Orbital Launches 

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99

Projected

United States

42%

Europe

22%

Russia

19%

China

14%

Ukraine

3%

$336 M 

$717 M $668 M 

$764 M 

$1,065 M 

$1,350 M

$0

$250

$500

$750

$1,000

$1,250

$1,500

Commercial Revenues

(in US $ Millions)

FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99

Projected

Delta II

10

11

11,330

4,120

Atlas 2

5

7

19,050

8,150

Name

FY 98 Launches

 FAA-Licensed

 Total

Capability (lbs)

 LEO

 GTO

Delta III

1

1

(failed)

18,280

8,400

III

Boeing

Pegasus

4

6

1,015

--

Athena 2

1

1

4,350

--

Taurus

1

1

3,300

1,290
No. 49369.

#### Protests 95258-K, etc., of A. Helmrath, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel certain of the ’hides were held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1530 (a), and certain of -those imported on or after the date of the Argentine Trade Agreement (T. D. 50504) were held dutiable at 5 percent. Protests sustained to this extent.
* Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

October 27, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30433

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DOYLE STEVEN DODD,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(3:02-CR-110-2-C)

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Doyle Steven Dodd appeals his conviction

and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

cocaine. He argues that (1) the district court erred in finding

that he was neither a minor nor a minimal participant pursuant to

U.S.S.G . § 3B1.2 and (2) A pprendi v. New Jersey

, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), rendered 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 unconstitutional.

The record discloses that (1) Dodd drove one of three vehicles

in a three-car convoy from Houston, Texas, to Lake Charles,2

Louisiana, for a diversionary purpose; (2) on arrival in Lake

Charles, Dodd transferred a bag containing five kilograms of

cocaine to his vehicle for the purpose of personally transporting

the drugs to Byron Robbins’s home in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; (3)

Dodd was personally responsible for transporting a significant

amount of cocaine; and (4) Dodd informed law enforcement that he

had previously accompanied Kenneth Dodd to Robbins’s home to

deliver narcotics. We conclude that the district court did not

clearly err when it found that Dodd was neither a minimal nor a

minor participant in the conspiracy, as that finding is plausible

in light of the record as a whole. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a), (b)

(2001); United States v. Virgen-Moreno

, 265 F.3d 276, 296 (5th Cir.

2001).

Dodd concedes that the issue whether A pprendi rendered

21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 unconstitutional is foreclosed by United

States v. Slaughter

, 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), and that he

raises it only to preserve its further review by the Supreme Court.

We are bound by our precedent, absent an intervening Supreme Court

decision or a subsequent en banc decision. S ee Uni ted States v.

Short , 181 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
```

                                                                    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 Quarterly  Report of NYFIX,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  period  ending  March 31,  2004 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Mark R. Hahn,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the
     Company.

/s/ Mark R. Hahn
---------------------------------------------
Mark R. Hahn
Chief Financial Officer
May 28, 2004

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to NYFIX, Inc. and will be retained by NYFIX, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
```
# Official Journal L 89/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.089.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 89 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5627 March 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.089.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 89

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5627 March 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Regulation No 12 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the driver against the steering mechanism in the event of impact | 1 |
| | * | 2013 amendments to Regulation No 58 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of: I. Rear underrun protective devices (RUPDs) — II. Vehicles with regard to the installation of an RUPD of an approved type — III. Vehicles with regard to their rear underrun protection (RUP) | 34 |
| | * | Regulation No 62 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of power-driven vehicles with handlebars with regard to their protection against unauthorized use | 37 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Regulation No 12 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the driver against the steering mechanism in the event of impact

1

*

2013 amendments to Regulation No 58 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of: I. Rear underrun protective devices (RUPDs) — II. Vehicles with regard to the installation of an RUPD of an approved type — III. Vehicles with regard to their rear underrun protection (RUP)

34

*

Regulation No 62 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of power-driven vehicles with handlebars with regard to their protection against unauthorized use

37

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Frederick M. Strader, as President and Chief Executive Officer ofUnited Industrial Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

a.               the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

b.              the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of United Industrial Corporation.
| Date: August 9, 2007 |   | /s/ FREDERICK M. STRADER              |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Frederick M. Strader                  |
|                 |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to United Industrial Corporationand will be retained by United Industrial Corporation and furnished to theSecurities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Theforegoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350.  It is not being filed for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is notto be incorporated by reference into any filing of the company, regardless ofany general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
UNITED STATES BATHYMETRIC MAP Si tcbane canon

me

ST, GEORGE CANYON
NOS NO 2-7
Case: 2:12-cv-00331-EAS-NMK Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/21/12 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00331-EAS-NMK Doc #: 50 Filed: 12/21/12 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T18:59:08-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Before the First Division,

September 1, 1943

No. 48698.

#### Protest 995368-G of Mandel Bead Import Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles in question are similar to those involved in Abstract 47821 the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 1503 was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v MICKEY R. HALON, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 489, 38 CMR 287

*490No. 20,733

April 26, 1968

*Captain Robert L. Wiesenthal*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief were *Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Major Jack G. McKay,*and *Captain John Wall Hanft.*

*Captain Gregory U. Evans*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major Edwin P. Wasinger, Major John F. Webb, Jr.,*and *Captain L. Frank Chopin.*

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

A general court-martial convicted the accused of a number of offenses, including conspiracy to escape from custody, in violation of Article 81, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 881, and sentenced him to a dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for two years, and total forfeiture of pay and allowances. The convening authority approved the findings of guilty, but modified the sentence by reducing the period of confinement to one year. A board of review affirmed.

On this appeal, the accused contends that certain instructions as to the conspiracy specification were prejudicially erroneous. Two of the instructions are as follows: (1) The “burden is not on the Government ... to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the overt act alleged . . . was consummated or completed or attempted”; and (2) the Government does not have the burden “to prove beyond a reasonable doubt even attempted assault in this case, with respect to this term overt act.” See United States v Kidd, 13 USCMA 184, 32 CMR 184. The Government concedes the instructions are “questionable” when read separately, but it maintains that, considered with earlier complete and accurate instructions, the extractions are revealed as correct advice to the effect that “so far as the particular overt act alleged may also constitute a crime, there .is no burden on the Government to prove it as such.” In our opinion, the reasoning required to reach the Government’s interpretation is too involved and too professionally oriented to give fair assurance that the court members interpreted the instructions in the same way. When instructions delineate apparently inconsistent rules as to the burden of proof, we cannot speculate that the court-martial followed the correct rule. United States v Rowan, 4 USCMA 430, 436, 16 CMR 4. See also United States v Pelletier, 15 USCMA 654, 36 CMR 152.

The findings of guilty as to the conspiracy offense (Charge II and its specification) are set aside and the charge is ordered dismissed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the board of review for reconsideration of the sentence on the basis of the remaining findings of guilty.

Judges FERGUSON and Kilday concur.
----

**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

|   | · | The                  Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended                  March                  31, 2007, (the “Report”), which this certification accompanies, fully                  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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/                  Bruce W. Marlow                   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Bruce                  W. Marlow                       |   |
| President                  and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| (Principal                  Executive Officer)         |   |

| /s/                  Steven P. Erwin                               |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Steven                  P. Erwin                                   |   |
| Senior                  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| (Principal                  Financial Officer)                     |   |

----
121 STAT. 1352 PUBLIC LAW 110–124—NOV. 30, 2007 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3307 (S. 2107): 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

Oct. 30, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 16, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–124 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 570 Broadway 

in Bayonne, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Dennis P. Collins Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DENNIS P. COLLINS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 570 Broadway in Bayonne, New Jersey, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Dennis P. Collins Post Office 

Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Dennis P. Collins Post Office Building’’. 

Approved November 30, 2007. 

Nov. 30, 2007 

[H.R. 3307] 


jbridges on POFP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS