alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, H. JamesSerrone, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-QSB of Torotel, Inc.

2.       Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;

4.       The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand we have:

a)     designed such disclosure controls andprocedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;

b)     evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 daysprior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

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

5.       The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

a)     all significant deficiencies in the designor operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and haveidentified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and

b)     any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls; and

6.       The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicatedin this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes ininternal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internalcontrols subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including anycorrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.
| /s/ H. James Serrone |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                      |   |   |
|                      |   |   |
|                      |   |   |
| H. James Serrone          |   |
| Chief Financial Officer   |   |
| December 10, 2006         |   |

 

 

|   |
|--------|

 

----
Page 1 of 1 

# Qualifier Definitions Reference Number: Report Date: 06/22/11 11-08082 Qualifier Definition IM Matrix induced bias assumed

FORM: QualifierDefs Note: Some qualifier definitions found on this page may pertain to results or QC data which are not printed with this report.
(Reap. Dec. 8973)

Entry No. 2024, etc.

#### Bullocks, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

(Decided August 29, 1957)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to various classes of merchandise exported from France and entered at the port of Los Angeles, Calif.

The cases have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation wherein the parties agree that the issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those which were the subject of the decision in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 596, Reap. Dec. 8590, the record in which was incorporated herein by consent. In that case, the court held foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise there under consideration, and that such statutory value did not include the so-called “French sole or unique tax.”

An agreed set of facts, included in the stipulation of submission, establishes that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise involved herein is statutory foreign value, and that such value for each of the items in question is the appraised value “less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases,” and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32


SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS





This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.


The undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. (the “Company”), each hereby certify as follows:


The Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended to date (this "report"), of the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 4th day of September, 2014/s/ Nicholas S. SchorschNicholas S. SchorschChief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board of Directors(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Brian S. BlockBrian S. BlockExecutive Vice President, Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
# Official Journal L 106/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 106 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6217 April 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 106

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6217 April 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/618 of 15 April 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 as regards the list of air carriers which are banned from operating or are subject to operational restrictions within the Union (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/618 of 15 April 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 474/2006 as regards the list of air carriers which are banned from operating or are subject to operational restrictions within the Union (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| 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.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 12, 2014

No. 04-14-00120-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.A.G.C., ET AL., CHILDREN,

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-00860

Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant's second motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. 

Appellant's brief is due on or before June 11, 2014. No further extensions of time will be 

granted.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 12th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
United States Steel Corporation – Minntac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request

April 24, 2012

Item 1

Provide process flow diagrams for both the taconite iron ore mining and the taconite

pellet manufacturing processes. Include in the description, at a minimum,

information on the following: mining operations, ore transfer and storage, course ore

crushing, fine ore crushing, ore classification screens, ore storage bins, grinding

rod/ball mills, separation, thickeners, balling drums/pellet formation, indurating

furnace, pellet cooling and storage, and the process boilers. Include a detailed

narrative process description and photographs to explain the indurating furnace

process (separately for each furnace). For each photograph, provide a coded

diagram/map to clearly identify the location of the image in the photograph.

Photographs must correspond to each of the process stages described.

Person(s) : that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or 

were consulted in the preparation of the response:

Teresa Simetkosky, Kraig Raiber, Chrissy Bartovich

Answer:

U. S. Steel is providing both public information and confidential business information to this 

Request. A separate disc is provided with the responsive information that is confidential. As per 

the conversation during the meeting and tour on April 18, 2012, pictures categorized as CBI are 

provided for Line 3. The pictures provided show the main differences of Line 3 versus the other 

lines which include cutter bar balling drums and scrubber system. As described, Line 3 is the 

oldest and smallest of the five operating lines at Minntac. In addition, the other lines (4-7) have 

once-through wet scrubbers installed for particulate and incidental SO2 removal. The Line 3 

scrubber is the newest (installed in 2006) and is a recirculating scrubber with a blowdown 

treatment system to remove sulfate and hardness.

Also, drawings that are CBI have been provided for the Crusher, Concentrator, and 

Agglomerator process, as provided on the CBI disc. An explanation of the Agglomerator 

process has been provided that details how to review the Agglomerator process files included in 

this submittal.
# Official Journal C 181/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.181.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 181 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5626 June 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.181.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 181

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5626 June 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2013/C 181/01 | Report on budgetary and financial management for the financial year 2012 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2013/C 181/01

Report on budgetary and financial management for the financial year 2012

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
U.S. Department of 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Transportation GENERAL COUNSEL Washington, DC 20590

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

49 CFR §§37.42(b), 37.49(e), 37.57 DECEMBER 14, 2011

QUESTION:

IF A PLATFORM IS OWNED BY A PRIVATE ENTITY OTHER THAN THE 

PASSENGER RAILROAD, WHAT HAPPENS IF THE PRIVATE ENTITY OBJECTS 

TO THE CREATION OF A LEVEL BOARDING PLATFORM?

ANSWER:

• Under section 37.42(b), if there is a new or altered station serving a passenger rail 

system, in which no track passing through the station and adjacent to the platform is 

shared with existing freight rail operations, the passenger railroad must comply with the 

performance standard by providing level-entry boarding.

• Where a station platform is owned by a private entity (e.g., a freight railroad), other than 

the passenger railroad operator providing service at the station, section 37.49(e) provides 

that the passenger railroad operator is the “responsible person” for complying with the 

requirements of Subpart C of Part 37 (the subpart concerning transportation facilities).

• Under section 37.57, an owner or the person in control of an intercity or commuter rail 

station is required to provide reasonable cooperation to the responsible person for that 

station with respect to the efforts of the responsible person to comply with the 

requirements of Subpart C of Part 37.

• Consequently, the private entity that owns the station platform is required by section 

37.57 to cooperate with the efforts of the passenger railroad to comply with the 

requirements of section 37.42(b). Because of this requirement, the private entity cannot 

refuse to permit the passenger railroad to construct or alter a platform that will provide 

level boarding. 

The General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has reviewed this document 

and approved it as consistent with the language and intent of 49 CFR Part 37.
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 Quarterly Report of Union Tank Car Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth P. Fischl, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In witness whereof, I have executed this certification as of the 11thday of August, 2008.



/s/ Kenneth P. FischlKenneth P. FischlPrincipal Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:13-cr-119

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAVERS

JOSE R. PEREZ,

Defendant.

ORDER

On September 27, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea to an

Indictment charging him in Count One with Conspiracy to Distribute 1,000 grams or more of heroin

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), and in Count Three with possession of a firearm in

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(a)(I) and 2. 

Defendant, represented by counsel, waived his right to appear on the matter before a District

Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free from coercion, and had a basis

in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of his right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Case: 2:13-cr-00119-GCS Doc #: 46 Filed: 11/06/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS 

Defendant’s plea of guilty to the Indictment. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty of conspiracy to

distribute 1,000 grams or more of heroin and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug

trafficking crime. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:13-cr-00119-GCS Doc #: 46 Filed: 11/06/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) thisQuarterly Report of Cruzan International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company asof March 31, 2005 and its results of operations for the period ended March 31,2005.

 

 
|   | /s/ Ezra  Shashoua                                    |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Ezra Shashoua                                         |
|   | Executive Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

Date:  May 13, 2005

 

1

----
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 371 

Designating July 22, 2006, as ‘‘National Day of the American Cowboy’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2006 

Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. BURNS, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. REID, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. 

SALAZAR, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. ENZI, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. ALLEN, 

and Mr. ENSIGN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating July 22, 2006, as ‘‘National Day of the 

American Cowboy’’. 

Whereas pioneering men and women, recognized as cowboys, 

helped establish the American West; 

Whereas that cowboy spirit continues to infuse this country 

with its solid character, sound family values, and good 

common sense; 

Whereas the cowboy embodies honesty, integrity, courage, 

compassion, respect, a strong work ethic, and patriotism; 

Whereas the cowboy loves, lives off of, and depends on the 

land and its creatures, and is an excellent steward, protecting and enhancing the environment; 
2 

•SRES 371 IS

Whereas the cowboy continues to play a significant role in the 

culture and economy of the United States; 

Whereas approximately 800,000 ranchers are conducting 

business in all 50 States and are contributing to the economic well being of nearly every county in the Nation; 

Whereas rodeo is the sixth most-watched sport in the United 

States; 

Whereas membership in rodeo and other organizations encompassing the livelihood of a cowboy transcends race 

and sex and spans every generation; 

Whereas the cowboy is an American icon; 

Whereas to recognize the American cowboy is to acknowledge 

the ongoing commitment of the United States to an esteemed and enduring code of conduct; and 

Whereas the ongoing contributions made by cowboys to their 

communities should be recognized and encouraged: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates July 22, 2006, as ‘‘National Day 

3 of the American Cowboy’’; and 

4 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

5 to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and 

6 activities. 

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 27, 2009

d0120 

# Order

January 27, 2009

136235(86)

PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 136235 COA: 271764 Macomb CC: 2 005-000694-AR 39 th District Court: 04-242199 EDWARD STROSS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s September 10, 2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

K ELLY , C.J., would grant reconsideration a nd, on reconsideration, would deny leave to appeal.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Appellate case name: In the Interest of K.M., Jr., A Child;

Appellate case number: 01-19-00285-CV

Trial court case number: 2017-04805J

Trial court: 315th District Court of Harris County

On April 9, 2019, appellant, D.M., through counsel, filed a notice of appeal from 

the trial court’s April 8, 2019 final decree for termination in the underlying trial court cause 

number 2017-04805J, involving K.M., Jr., a male child, which was assigned by the Clerk’s 

Office to appellate cause number 01-19-00285-CV. On that same day, D.M. also filed a 

notice of appeal, through counsel, from the trial court’s April 8, 2019 final decree for 

termination in the trial court cause number 2018-01409J, involving K.M., a female child, 

which was assigned by the Clerk’s Office to appellate cause number 01-19-00286-CV.

On April 22, 2019, Steven B. Frazier, counsel for appellant, D.M., filed this 

unopposed motion for consolidation. Appellant seeks to consolidate this appellate cause 

number 01-19-00285-CV with the related appellate cause number 01-19-00286-CV

because they are companion cases and were tried together on March 18 and 20, 2019.

However, even though these appeals were filed by the same appellant, D.M., they 

involve different trial court cause numbers and different children, and the clerk’s records 

were already filed in this Court on April 18, 2019, for each case. Furthermore, because 

both of the reporter’s records are scheduled to be filed by the same reporter on April 29, 

2019, appellant’s counsel may file one brief for both appeals and this Court may decide to 

submit the two appeals together and, if this Court permits argument, they may be argued 

together, all without the need for consolidation.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES appellant’s motion for consolidation.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Laura C. Higley_____

 x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: _April 25, 2019_____________________
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
Just i ces

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 23, 2012

d0416 

# Order

April 23, 2012

142923(54)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142923 COA: 295444 Emmet CC: 09-003137-FC MICHAEL SHAWN JARVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s September 28, 2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

M ARILYN 

### K ELLY 

### , J., would grant the moti on for reconsideration.