alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


Exhibit 31.2 - Certification of the CFO Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act


I, Richard Chambers, the chief financial officer of Rogers International Raw
Materials Fund L.P., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rogers International
Raw Materials Fund L.P;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 presented in this quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

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

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date July 28, 2003
     -------------
                                       /s/ Richard Chambers
                                       --------------------
                                      Chief Financial Officer
# C_2013147EN.01003501.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/35

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-67/12) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Action for damages - Unlawfulness - Letter concerning compliance with a judgment sent to the applicant’s representative in the appeal against that judgment - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure)

2013/C 147/66

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered due to the defendant having sent a letter concerning the applicant to a lawyer not yet representing the applicant in that case.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay his own costs and to bear the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay his own costs and to bear the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012, p. 16.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JAIRO HERNANDEZ, AKA Joker, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-17328 

D.C. No. 

3:14-cr-00120-EMC-6 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 8, 2021

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and CHOE-GROVES,**Judge.

Jairo Hernandez appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 habeas motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Zuno-Arce, 339 F.3d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 

2003), we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge for the United States 

Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

FILED

JAN 6 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-17328 

The district court permissibly concluded that Hernandez procedurally 

defaulted the challenge to his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) by failing to raise 

that challenge on direct appeal. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621 

(1998). Contrary to Hernandez’s contention, his claim that his sentence is invalid 

in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), goes to the merits of his 

conviction and sentence rather than to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See 

United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630–31 (2002) (“[T]he objection that the 

indictment does not charge a crime against the United States goes only to the 

merits of the case.” (citation omitted)); cf. United States v. Goodall, 15 F.4th 987, 

994–97 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that the appeal waiver contained in defendant’s 

plea agreement barred his claim that his § 924(c) sentence was invalid in light of 

Davis). Accordingly, the claim is subject to the usual procedural default rule. See 

United States v. Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962–63 (9th Cir. 2003). Hernandez does 

not challenge the district court’s conclusion that he failed to demonstrate the 

necessary cause and prejudice or actual innocence to excuse his procedural default. 

See Bousley, 523 U.S. at 622.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 61867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24448]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

SES Performance Review Board--Appointment of Members

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the 
Performance Review Board of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa M. Williams, Chief Human Capital 
Officer, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20507, (202) 663-4306.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Publication of the Performance Review Board 
(PRB) membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB reviews 
and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance 
by the supervisor, and makes recommendations to the Chair, EEOC, with 
respect to performance ratings, pay level adjustments and performance 
awards.
    The following are the names and titles of executives appointed to 
serve as members of the SES PRB. Members will serve a 12-month term, 
which begins on November 19, 2014.

PRB Chair:
    Mr. Dexter R. Brooks, Director, Federal Sector Programs, Office of 
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Members:
    Mr. Kevin J. Berry, Director, New York District Office, Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission;
    Ms. Katherine E. Bissell, Deputy Solicitor for Regional 
Enforcement, Department of Labor;
    Ms. Kathryn A. Ellis, Assistant General Counsel, Division of 
Educational Equity and Research, and Agency Dispute Resolution 
Specialist, Department of Education;
    Ms. Gwendolyn Y. Reams, Associate General Counsel, Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission;
Alternate:
    Ms. Delner Franklin-Thomas, Director, Birmingham District Office, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    By the direction of the Commission.

    Dated: October 3, 2014.
Jenny R. Yang,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2014-24448 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Advanced Technologies Group, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2008 as filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alex Stelmak, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: June 12, 2008                        /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Alex Stelmak
                                           Chief Executive Officer and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
No. 46391.

#### Protest 54893-K of S. Lisk & Bro. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstracts 39948 and 40480 the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was sustained.
# C_2013252EN.01004701.xml

| 31.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Buschak v Commission

(Case F-56/12) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Temporary staff - Unemployment allowance - Pension contributions - Application out of time)

2013/C 252/81

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Willy Buschak (Dresde, Germany) (represented by: T. Menssen, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to pay contributions in respect of the applicant to a national pension scheme or to the European Union pension scheme after the end of his contract as a temporary agent during the period in which he was unemployed, and application for him to be included in the European Union pension scheme or for his pension rights to be transferred to the national scheme.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Buschak to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Buschak to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012, p. 34.

1

---
!"#  

$ %!" ! 

! !  !!& '"! #'!()

	

*!!+'

(,-.!/01. !$1!)





5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//

3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUF

(/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )

)LOH 1DPH D

	
	

*23)+4056)+

777777777777

/1,7(' 07$7(6 2) &0(5,&$

	



1(/25,6 8/29(59	
:

),027+< -&121$/'9	
:

	
	


&!/0

!$1!)

<	=>(,-

&?(

1*?(

@!?A45)+05B43.

777777777777

	


&3*2*,/@B5.14*4143-)	
  $ . &
	

	 	




2**5.4 - ) ! &  	
0 ( . &0050)&) /5)41 0)&)40&))234C - ) ! &   & 3 * 2**5.4 2* )+4*4143&B,/@B5.14*4143-)!&  	
  $ . & (&14302 B&$ 2**5.4 - ) !&  	
  0 ( . &0050)&)/5)410)&)40&))234C-)!&







1&-2(A45)+.(5

) -118 ! D    !  !*!&**53-




2&E<DDD

!-))     ! '  D         ''  

),& &5

'D!)!' -18D-1'DD!      $ D       &   !FG& !!!#

	


 

) 

H' !!!   & H I5'#   )    '   !

&H# 

 J       	

<*==K
=<" !530!! '!!   "  !   < /0. L   K *=<E<<	< 9." ! :J	
.:9FMN!!! ''"

K/09
:J	


< 9 .: 9 !!'   :J	
	.: 9   "  !!!           :)!)     !! )"
 	

	 	




5XOH  SURYLGHV 3,I VFLHQWLILF WHFKQLFDO RU RWKHU VSHFLDOL]HG

NQRZOHGJH ZLOO DVVLVW WKH WULHU RI IDFW WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH HYLGHQFH RU WRGHWHUPLQH D IDFW LQ LVVXH D ZLWQHVV TXDOLILHG DV DQ H[SHUW E\ NQRZOHGJHVNLOO H[SHULHQFH WUDLQLQJ RU HGXFDWLRQ PD\ WHVWLI\ WKHUHWR LQ WKH IRUP RIDQ RSLQLRQ RU RWKHUZLVH ́ )HG 5 (YLG 

"DI5'  ! '   ! '

8' &H'%!  

"'')  & H   "  *3!4K!!!

)   # !             ! "&H!I5'!#'!(-)

28!&

H#      !   0&H##!(! !'! ! 8&H    !    '  '  !     " ! "!8 

 !"# !!  !       "#8&H#   '    !  ! 

	


 

)!!!

& & @!8!& # 'G9(&:& 88-1!-1'D&   &  F   -1 !

8& #

%& !!)!-1!-1& 

&!& 8

    G  !#9(&:8-1&  !   #  & '!-#'D&  'D      !D!    ' D  )D!D' !' 
E 	

	 	




& !

-1#!& # !  D   5    & 8#!!#!D& ! 0 !-!!D& #

B& 

  ! 0  )  ! ! -1#  - )           (D -'D&50-1'& ' &  (D,1      - ,1

) !   &  !  !#

 !      - -!!-)!& ) !!   + .  0!!#1   (D -   '!

2!! !  + .  0!!# 1

'     &     -)#      !- & # -)D (D''!$   '-& #D !'D&!'D'-1 !

)   '  ! -1   

!"         8 '% D 

	


  &!!!!!!! D !''&  !

$   '  

'!<<<9
.:4! '   F'!!	
 
=:

5!!'

' 9=:' !  9E: !  9:'  ! 

/0. L   )       

 	
  	 =< *:5' '    "!

5   '  

#    ) H !  9F5.@G:&H!D'!   ! ! !   !+!   !   !!
< 	

	 	




*ORYHU DVNV WKH &RXUW XSRQ D ILQGLQJ WKDW WKHUH LV LQVXIILFLHQW

HYLGHQFH WR VXSSRUW KHU FRQYLFWLRQ IRU FDUMDFNLQJ WR GLVPLVV KHUFRQYLFWLRQ IRU FDUU\LQJ DQG XVH RI D ILUHDUP GXULQJ DQG LQ UHODWLRQ WR DFULPH RI YLROHQFH

&!         

-1#    '  ' "	



8!!

!D8

      ''  !      D8!!-1       	

!
 
	 ! 

!#0! -1 D  #    #!!#

$!8

 !         !  "-18#!%     !  8   -1#)!' 8-1''%-1    'D!#DF G$"     !  8   -1 D!  #   & !  ! 8# #!!-1!-(D-

	


 

2 0' = < -1

' ! ! )   	 DLJ.55 !/0.LLE9:

1!'  

)    )   !%2 ( . .5!!
'

@-18!

.-1!! !  

			


	#$$% %!$&'( %

5!

    F  G"	#
$	

FM$N  ' 	
	*=

)'

!   !  '   ' 'G  "

9:

1!  ! 

</0.L9:

 	

	 	




$' D' !!     !  '  ! ' '!      ')0. !

L%!    D       %!!D!   !!  D   %	  

	
/0=9:).   %    )! 

! %!L F!D    # '  !  D! 9 ! :G&

)


-1      !! 

' ''' D!& #+        !  -1' ! D'%

@& -1

  !    !  '     % F  '  ' '  M-1N     DM& N!' D!G%	

/0	-1 !

	


 !F !!! !

-1

!#D-1#

	  *= <
  9!!!%!!!!'	#  *=  K 9=. !  %  !!D D!	(
=
*=EK 9< ! '!!K<*=
=

9.!      ! !'! 

$-1#

!D)!& !  D               3!)     '  L
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1585 

To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility requirements to 

foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to the provision of 

assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 

Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. 

BROWN of Ohio, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. 

BEGICH, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. 

AKAKA, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, and 

Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility 

requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations 

with respect to the provision of assistance under part 

I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Global Democracy Pro5 motion Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1585 IS

1 SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR FOREIGN NONGOVERNMENTAL 

2 ORGANIZATIONS UNDER PART I OF THE FOR3 EIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1961. 

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regula5 tion, or policy, in determining eligibility for assistance au6 thorized under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 

7 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), foreign nongovernmental 

8 organizations— 

9 (1) shall not be ineligible for such assistance 

10 solely on the basis of health or medical services, in11 cluding counseling and referral services, provided by 

12 such organizations with non-United States Govern13 ment funds if such services do not violate the laws 

14 of the country in which they are being provided and 

15 would not violate United States Federal law if pro16 vided in the United States; and 

17 (2) shall not be subject to requirements relating 

18 to the use of non-United States Government funds 

19 for advocacy and lobbying activities other than those 

20 that apply to United States nongovernmental organi21 zations receiving assistance under part I of such 

22 Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2012258EN.01000901.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 29 May 2012 — Citroën Belux NV v Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)

(Case C-265/12)

2012/C 258/15

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Citroën Belux NV

Appellant:

Respondent: Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 3(9) of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision, such as Article 72 WMPC, (2) which — subject to the cases which are exhaustively listed in the law — generally prohibits any combined offer to the consumer as soon as at least one component is a financial service? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 3(9) of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision, such as Article 72 WMPC, (2) which — subject to the cases which are exhaustively listed in the law — generally prohibits any combined offer to the consumer as soon as at least one component is a financial service?

1

2

| 2. | Must Article 56 TFEU, concerning the freedom to provide services, be interpreted as precluding a provision, such as Article 72 WMPC, which — subject to the cases which are exhaustively listed in the law — generally prohibits any combined offer to the consumer as soon as at least one component is a financial service? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 56 TFEU, concerning the freedom to provide services, be interpreted as precluding a provision, such as Article 72 WMPC, which — subject to the cases which are exhaustively listed in the law — generally prohibits any combined offer to the consumer as soon as at least one component is a financial service?

---

(1)  Directive 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).

1

(2)  Wet betreffende marktpraktijken en consumentenbescherming (Belgian Law on Market Practices and Consumer Protection).

2

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMIDA RIVERA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

RECONTRUST COMPANY, NA, a

wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of

America, NA; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-16474

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01695-KJD-PAL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2015** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 

Armida Rivera appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her

action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We affirm.

FILED

FEB 27 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Rivera’s action

on the basis of judicial estoppel because Rivera’s position in her complaint is

clearly inconsistent with her statement in the bankruptcy court, and the bankruptcy

court accepted her prior position in granting her a discharge. See Hamilton v. State

Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782-83 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth the

standard of review and explaining the doctrine of judicial estoppel). Accepting

Rivera’s current, inconsistent position would provide her with an unfair advantage

in light of the bankruptcy discharge. See id. at 782 (“Judicial estoppel is an

equitable doctrine that precludes a party from gaining an advantage by asserting

one position, and then later seeking an advantage by taking a clearly inconsistent

position.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 12-16474