alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
31.2
  I, Thomas
R. Eakin, certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of SonomaWest Holdings, Inc.;
  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;
  3. 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;
  4. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
  (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) 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;
  (c) 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 that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
  5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  (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.
  Date: May
12, 2005
  
 /s/
Thomas R. Eakin
 Thomas R.
Eakin
 Chief
Financial Officer
    
 -22-
EXHIBIT 31.2


I, Christine R. Larson, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Trinity Learning
     Corporation;

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;

3.   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;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer 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:

     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)   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

     c)   disclosed in this report any change in internal control over financial
          reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
          quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
          materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
          reporting;

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

     a)   all significant deficiencies 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.


Date:  December 13, 2004

       /S/ CHRISTINE R. LARSON
       -----------------------

       Christine R. Larson
       Chief Financial Officer
No. 48751.

#### Protests 57104-K, etc., of Thomas & Pierson, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation’sConsent**

 

Union CarbideCorporation:

 

Analysis, Research &Planning Corporation (“ARPC”) hereby consents to the use of ARPC’s name and thereference to ARPC’s reports dated January 9, 2003, January 26, 2004, January26, 2005 and January 3, 2006 in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofUnion Carbide Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2006.

 

 
| /s/ B. THOMAS  FLORENCE                        |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|
| B. Thomas Florence                             |   |
| President                                      |   |
| Analysis, Research  & Planning Corporation |   |
| April 25, 2006                                 |   |

 

21

----
LOGO

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Year Ended December 31, 2017

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust, Series 2016-GC36

Pursuant to Section 3.06 of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the Servicing Agreement), I hereby attest that:



| | i. | A review of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the period has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ii. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughout the period and no default by the
Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Berkadia,



LOGO

Mark E. McCool

President

February 10, 2018

Inv. 187 Lib. A
August 26, 1940

No. 44232.

Suit 4278.

#### S. *Goldman*v. *United States.*

C. D. 174 affirmed. C. A. D. 139.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000

<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                              4,080
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     188,957
<ALLOWANCES>                        4,553
<INVENTORY>                       182,532
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  379,650
<PP&E>                            315,780
<DEPRECIATION>                    181,569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    548,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              67,265
<BONDS>                                 0
<COMMON>                           29,395
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                        15,198
<OTHER-SE>                        151,061
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      548,389
<SALES>                           448,891
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  448,891
<CGS>                             333,170
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     349,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   67,276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    3,248
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 15,799
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    13,230
<INCOME-TAX>                        5,036
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 8,194
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        8,194
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .25

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.30

[ISG Technologies logo appears here]

October 13, 1999

Howard Pinsky
Chief Technical Officer
EMED Technologies
25 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02173

Dear Howard:

RE: VALUE ADDED RESELLER AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 31, 1997

ISG Technolgies extends to EMED Technologies, formerly Access Radiology
Corporation, the option of extending the Value Added Reseller Agreement, dated
March 31, 1997 and amended by further agreements dated September 21, 1998 and
December 31, 1998.

All the terms and conditions of the original Value Added Reseller agreement and
amendments shall remain in effect for an additional two years from the original
expiry date. The new termination date will be March 31, 2002.

The option to extend does not restrict both parties from mutually agreeing upon
amending or replacing this agreement in the future.

Sincerely,

/s/  Alyn Bord
--------------
Alyn Bord
Vice President and General Manager
Image Management Group

ISG Document Number 1999-02098
No. 53778.

protests 147745-K and 146981-K (Detroit).

#### Winthrop-Stearns, Inc. *v.*United States,

*221Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
No. 40360.

#### Protests 310859-G, etc.

Abstract 39981. Application by Government for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 31.4

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Jeffrey M. Stafeil, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Adient plc for the year ended September 30, 2016;
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | 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.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Jeffrey M. StafeilJeffrey M. StafeilExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

June 29, 2017
No. 47589.

#### Protests 86227-K, etc., of James McCutcheon & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the woven silk mufflers in question are similar to those involved in Abstract 44055 the claim at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 was sustained.
# C_2016038EN.01003601.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/36

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Letrado de la Administración de Justicia del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 18 November 2015 — María Assumpció Martínez Roges v José Antonio García Sánchez

(Case C-609/15)

(2016/C 038/49)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Letrado de la Administración de Justicia del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrasa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María Assumpció Martínez Roges

Applicant:

Defendant: José Antonio García Sánchez

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of Directive [93/13/EEC (1)] and Articles 6(1)(d), 11 and 12 of Directive 2005/29/EC (2) inasmuch as they preclude any examination ex officio of possible unfair terms or unfair commercial practices in contracts concluded between lawyers and natural persons who are acting for purposes which are outside their trade, business or profession? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of Directive [93/13/EEC (1)] and Articles 6(1)(d), 11 and 12 of Directive 2005/29/EC (2) inasmuch as they preclude any examination ex officio of possible unfair terms or unfair commercial practices in contracts concluded between lawyers and natural persons who are acting for purposes which are outside their trade, business or profession?

1

2

| 2. | Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of, and [point 1(q) of the Annex to], Directive [93/13/EEC] inasmuch as they preclude the production of evidence for the purpose of resolving the dispute in the administrative procedure for recovery of unpaid fees? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Articles 34 and 35 of Law 1/2000 incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of, and [point 1(q) of the Annex to], Directive [93/13/EEC] inasmuch as they preclude the production of evidence for the purpose of resolving the dispute in the administrative procedure for recovery of unpaid fees?

---

(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

1

(2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

2

---
#### Glenn R. BEUSTRING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, the agent and an official arm of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, through its General Counsel, Dan Murdock, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-6091.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Sept. 29, 2005.

Murray E. Abowitz, Abowitz, Timber-lake *&*Dahnke, P.C., Oklahoma City, OK, Joan Godlove, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*998Nathan A. Lockhart, Oklahoma Bar Association, Charles F. Alden, III, Hudson & Alden, Oklahoma City, OK, for DefendantAppellee.

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

STEPHEN H. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

Attorney Glenn R. Beustring brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Oklahoma Bar Association and certain individuals, challenging disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the Bar. Counsel for the parties agreed at oral argument that the disciplinary proceedings are still ongoing, having been presented to and remaining pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

The details of this case, including Mr. Beustring’s arguments and the underlying facts and procedural history, are set forth in detail in two orders entered by the district court, dated, respectively, March 1, 2004, and March 23, 2004, and we need not repeat them here. In those orders, the district court concluded that “it should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the case at bar under the *Younger/Middlesex*abstention doctrine.”1 Accordingly, the court dismissed the action on that basis. Likewise, the district court denied the plaintiff'appellant’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to vacate the judgment, citing the same grounds set forth in the court’s initial opinion.

We have reviewed Mr. Beustring’s arguments on appeal claiming that the district court erred in its judgment, and we are unpersuaded. Substantially for the reasons and on the grounds set forth in the district court’s opinions referred to above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1

. *Younger v. Harris,*401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); *Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n,*457 U.S. 423, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982).
No. 41993.

#### Protest 105406-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United Slates*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40) and *United States*v. *Ramig*(17 C. C. P. A. 365, T. D. 43809) Normandy laces, embroidered cotton curtains, and embroidered silk veilings were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430. Merchandise in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those the subject of Abstract 38230 was held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31.
SERVED: February 11, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

JOSEPH TERRELL BROWN 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2014-0690 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") tiled a Complaint dated 

October 7, 2014. Joseph T. Brown, (hereinafter "Respondent") tiled a Request for Hearing, by 

and through his mother Aheesah Cleveland, dated September 23, 2014. We served our 

Procedural Order on November 24, 2014. 

On November 18,2014, the FAA filed a Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted and to 

Issue Order Assessing Civil Penalty. · 

Respondent has failed to file an Answer to the Complaint; has failed to file a response to 

our Procedural Order and has failed to respond to the FAA'S Motion to Deem Allegations 

Admitted and to Issue Order Assessing Civil Penalty. 

WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. On or before March 6, 2015, Respondent shall file a response to this Order stating 

why the relief requested in the FAA's Motion should not be granted; and 

2. · On or before March 6, 2015, Respondent shall answer the Complaint; and 

3. On or before March 6, 2015, Respondent shall fully comply with our Procedural 

Order; and 

4. Absent full and complete responses to paragraphs I, 2 and 3 hereinabove, 

Respondent may be sanctioned including, but not limited to, allegations in the Complaint may be 

deemed admitted; and/or Respondent may be precluded from introducing any evidence at the 
hearing other than his own testimony; and/or Respondent's Request for Hearing may be 

dismissed; and/or a Default Judgment may be entered against Respondent in the full amount of 

the fine requested by the Agency in its Complaint. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

· U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

2 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 

Joseph Terrell Brown, Respondent 

3370 Adriatic Avenue #2A 

Long Beach, CA 90810 

TEL: 562-338-4553 (cell) 

FAX: 562-208-3793 (home) 

ONE COPY 

Aneesah Cleveland, Re:.,pondent 's Representative 

3370 Adriatic Avenue #2A 

Long Beach, CA 90810 

TEL: 562-338-4553 (cell) 

562-208-3 793 (home) 

Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, APW-7.6 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Western-Pacific Region 

P.O. Box 92007 

.Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-7117 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law .Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0690 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W 1000, Washington, 

DC 2059 I; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

3
No. 48101.

#### Protest 911990-G of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel brass base shells, similar to those the subject of *New York Merchandise Co., Inc.*v. *United States (8*Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 607), were held dutiable as claimed, as articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as signs, at 35 percent under paragraph 353; and paperweights similar to those the subject of *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 221, C. A. D. 20) were held dutiable as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339, as claimed.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**Union Carbide Corporation andSubsidiaries**

**Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Edward W. Rich, VicePresident, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Union Carbide Corporation(the “Corporation”), certify that:

1.               the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Corporationfor the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

 

 
| /s/ EDWARD W. RICH            |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Edward W. Rich                |   |
| Vice President, Treasurer and |   |
| Chief Financial Officer       |   |
| July 30, 2007                 |   |

 

25

----