alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2

                 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
         PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Dale W. Bleck, certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this annual report of CET Services, 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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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
small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business
issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

     5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  March 2, 2006


/s/ Dale W. Bleck
Dale W. Bleck
Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Angelo FAZZIO.

No. 62407.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Angelo Fazzio applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, review, mandamus and for a stay order. Parish of St. Tammany-

Writ denied.

TATE, CALOGERO, JJ.,

concur, believing that if the State attempts to call Cayton, Langford or Peyton to testify, it must under *Davis v. Alaska*and *Brady*furnish information of the nature sought which is readily accessible to it.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23897]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Meeting of 
the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
meeting of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council, 
October 23-24, 1997, National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville 
Pike, Building 31, Conference Room 10, Bethesda, Maryland.
    The Council meeting will be open to the public on October 23 from 
8:30 a.m. to approximately 3:00 p.m. for discussion of program policies 
and issues. Attendance by the public will be limited to space 
available.
    In accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) 
and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C., section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, 
the meeting will be closed to the public from approximately 3:00 p.m. 
on October 23 to adjournment on October 24, for the review, discussion, 
and evaluation of individual grant applications. These applications and 
the discussions could reveal confidential trade secrets or commercial 
property such as patentable material, and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the applications, the disclosure 
of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 
privacy.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
contact the Executive Secretary in advance of the meeting.
    Dr. Ronald G. Geller, Executive Secretary, National Heart, Lung, 
and Blood Advisory Council, Rockledge Building (RKL2), Room 7100, 
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 435-
0260, will furnish substantive program information.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.837, Heart 
and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; and 
93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes 
of Health)

    Dated: September 4, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-23897 Filed 9-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001076700
<NAME>                        VIRILITEC INDUSTRIES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                         10,647
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  19,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               30,384
<PP&E>                                         3,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,700)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 38,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,300
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       472
<OTHER-SE>                                     33,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   19,521
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19,200
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9,893
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            9,893
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   9,893
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.002
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.002



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2717 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2717

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 231 North Franklin Street in Greensburg, Indiana, as the ``Brigadier 
                 General John T. Wilder Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN T. WILDER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 231 North Franklin Street in Greensburg, Indiana, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Brigadier General John T. Wilder Post 
Office''.
    (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 ``Brigadier 
General John T. Wilder Post Office''.

            Passed the Senate April 23, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2717

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 231 North Franklin Street in Greensburg, Indiana, as the ``Brigadier 
                 General John T. Wilder Post Office''.
```
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 17-967V

Filed: April 19, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

LISA WORKMAN,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner.

Meredith Burns Healy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On July 18, 2017, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that that she developed a shoulder injury related to vaccine

administration (“SIRVA”) in her left shoulder as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine

administered to her on September 23, 2016. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to 

the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 12, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

 

1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This 

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine 

Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the 

disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned 

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from 

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in 

accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management 

and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
2

at 1. Specifically, respondent states that “petitioner has satisfied the criteria for SIRVA 

set forth in the recently revised Vaccine Injury Table.” Id. at 4. Respondent further 

agrees that “based on the record as it now stands, petitioner has satisfied all legal 

prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 5.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1370

ERIC GOUDY, II , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1 : 23

- cv - 00339

- LMB

- LRV )

Submitted : February 27 , 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON , WYNN , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed as modified by un published per curiam opinion

.
Eric Goudy, II, Appellant Pro Se. David M. Gettings, TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1370 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Eric Goudy, II, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, affirm the district court’s order. Goudy v. Navy Fed. Credit
Union , No. 1:23

- cv - 00339

- LMB

- LRV (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2023) . However, we modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. S ee Thomas v. Salvation Army S. Territory , 841 F.3d 632, 642 (4th Cir. 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1370 Doc: 12 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Larry J. DENNIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-386.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 13, 1970.

Rowan J. Helferty, Jr., Dunedin, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

MANN, Judge.

Dennis’ notice of appeal was dated June 4, 1969, twenty-seven days after judgment and sentence on May 8, 1969. The notice of appeal was notarized, though it need not have been, and the notary acknowledged its execution on June 4. The envelope in which the notice was mailed was postmarked June 12, so by the time of mailing the appeal time had expired. The record before us does not indicate whether the untimely filing of the notice of appeal is attributable to Dennis or to the negligence of personnel in the Division of Corrections. We must in any case dismiss the appeal as untimely filed. If state action has deprived Dennis of his right of review his remedy is as outlined in Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239.

Appeal dismissed.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                          19,407
<SECURITIES>                                    34,597
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,699
<PP&E>                                           4,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                     757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,967
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           200
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,982
<SALES>                                          9,988
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,995
<CGS>                                            5,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,518
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (765)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,222)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,222)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,222)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.47)


</TABLE>
#### Israel MAGUEIRA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 6, 1977.

Lewis M. Williams, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appealing from conviction of burglary, on a non-jury trial, the question presented by the appellant is “Whether the Circuit Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal after the close of all the testimony”.

As pointed out by the State, as appellee, no such motion was made or ruled on at the close of all the evidence. A motion of the defendant for acquittal had been made at the close of the presentation of evidence by the State. That motion was without statement of grounds therefor, as required by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.380(b). See: *G.W.B. v. State,*340 So.2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In absence of an appropriate and timely motion presenting to the court the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, the appellant’s argument here as to insufficiency of the evidence is inappropriate. In *State v. Barber,*301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974) the Supreme Court said:

> 

> “The construction placed upon F.A.R. 6.16 by the district court was erroneous. As we have previously stated in the cases noted above, unless the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict in a criminal case is first presented to the trial court by way of an appropriate motion, the issue is not reviewable on direct appeal from an adverse judgment. No such appropriate motion having been made in the trial court in this cause, the question of sufficiency of the evidence was not open to appellate review.”

> * ^ if:

The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6656
CHARLES GWYN PAFFORD, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE; DANIEL T. MAHON, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-1229-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Gwyn Pafford, Appellant Pro Se. Wirt Peebles Marks, IV, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 29 U.S.C. § 2254 (Law Co-op.Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent thata certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Pafford v. Angelone , No. CA-95-1229-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 4, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

Fraccionadora y Urbanizadora de Juarez, S.A. de C.V., Inmobiliaria y Constructor Berza, S.A. de C.V., Aeroservicios de Viaje, S.A. de C.V., Abba

- Farma, S.A. de

C.V. and Juan Carlos Bermudez Espinosa

,

Appellants /Cross

- Appellees

,

v.

Claudia Patricia Zaragoza Delgado

,

Appellee /Cross

- Appellant

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 046

- C V

Appeal from the

3 88 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2013DCM2366)

O R D E R

The Court DENIES the motion for continuance of the October 12, 2017 submission and oral argument setting filed by Appellants

, Fraccionadora y Urbanizadora de Juarez, S.A. de C.V., Inmobiliaria y Constructor Berza, S.A. de C.V., Aeroservicios de Viaje, S.A. de C.V., and Abba

Farma, S.A. de C.V.

Further, the submission and oral argument setting is currently scheduled for October 12,

2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Eighth Court of Appeals. All of the parties remain scheduled to appear for oral ar gument

. In the event that Appellants

, Fraccionadora y Urbanizadora de Juarez, S.A. de C.V., Inmobiliaria y Constructor Berza, S.A. de C.V., Aeroservicios de Viaje, S.A. de C.V., and Abba

- Farma, S.A. de C.V.

, are un available to appear for oral argument , th e Court will consider the merits of the se parties’ appeal on the basis of their brief s, but the Court expects all other parties to participate in oral argument

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11 th day of October , 201 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
#### City of Passaic, appellant, *v.*Mayor &c. of the City of Newark, respondents.

On appeal from an order dated November 16th, 1891, advised by Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet, refusing to discharge a former order made in the cause of the *Newark Aqueduct Board*v. *City of Passaic,*July 24th, 1891, directing that the Mayor and Common Council of the City of Newark be substituted as party complainants in the place of the Newark Aqueduct Board, by virtue of the provisions of an act of the legislature of 1891. Chap. CXXXIX.

*Mr. John W. Griggs,*for the appellant.

*Mr. E. Livingston Price,*for the respondents.

Per Curiam.

Order appealed from reversed. No opinion filed.

*For affirmance*— None.

*For reversal*— The Chief-Justice, Dixon, Garrison, Magie, Reed, Van Syckel, Werts, Bogert, Brown, Smith, Whitaker — 11.
Company Suwannee Holcim

Location Branford, FL Trident

Kiln 1 Kiln 1

Rank = 1 2

Avg (ppmvd) 5.68 5.69

Count 274 762

99th percentile (ppmvd) 10.84 15.14

No CISWI Analysis: 

30-Day Rolling THC Averages (ppmv) March 1, 2011