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

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF ANTHONY LEE AS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Anthony Lee, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2005 of Pacific Magtron International Corp.;

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 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 me 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 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 registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) 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 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 controls 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: August 16, 2005

By: /s/ Anthony Lee
------------------------------
Anthony Lee
Chief Financial Officer
#### Ex parte Frank HILLYER, Jr.

SC 2798.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 10, 1977.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, AL-MON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
# Subsistence collaborates with industry partners to establish a transparent ingredient restriction process

/ Published Nov. 14, 2018
PHILADELPHIA, 
Plans to develop a more transparent process regarding restricted ingredients for military dining facility menus were discussed at the Research and Development Associates for Military Food and Packaging meeting Oct. 23 in Woburn, Massachusetts, a Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support division chief said. 

“At the recent RD&A meeting we discussed a process map that allows industry to have input into actions before they take place,” Janine Samoni, the Subsistence strategic material sourcing group division chiefsaid. “If there is an ingredient that we plan to restrict in the future, DLA would solicit feedback from the industry.” 

The process that Samoni stated follows the same model the Food and Drug Administration and United States Department of Agriculture uses before publishing their respective decisions in the Federal Register.

“DLA will solicit feedback from the industry, provide that feedback to the Department of Defense nutrition committee and they would funnel that information to the appropriate agencies for review and to make a recommendation,” Samoni said. “Once the appropriate agency makes their recommendation, we would issue a proposed ruling and allow industry to comment again before a final decision would be made.”

Starr Seip, a registered dietitian in Subsistence’s standardization and cataloging branch, stated that everything placed in DLA catalogs and provided to military dining facilities have to meet requirements based on FDA, USDA and DOD menu standards in the services buyer’s guide.

“As the outside markets and the mission of the services change, the services may reach out to DLA to adjust their requirements at any time,” Seip said.  “My job is to facilitate the service standards, to ensure that our vendors provide our service members safe, and the best quality food possible from approved sources, based on nutrition science and the buyer’s guide standards.”

In early 2019, DLA plans to host a meeting in Philadelphia to finalize and issue the new communication mapping process to industry.  

 “We are excited to partner with industry on this project,” Gina Vasquez, Subsistence director of supplier operations said. “DLA Troop Support strives to be transparent and open as it works to efficiently support the dietary requirements of the military services and to ensure the warfighter’s readiness and lethality in achieving their global mission.”
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2082 

To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions 

of that Act and the lone wolf provision of the Intelligence Reform 

and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to March 31, 2006. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12, 2005 

Mr. SUNUNU (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Ms. 

MURKOWSKI, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. STABENOW, 

and Mr. SALAZAR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset 

of certain provisions of that Act and the lone wolf provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 

Act of 2004 to March 31, 2006. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•S 2082 IS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUNSET OF CERTAIN PROVI2 SIONS OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE 

3 LONE WOLF PROVISION OF THE INTEL4 LIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVEN5 TION ACT OF 2004. 

6 Section 224(a) of the Uniting and Strengthening 

7 America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to 

8 Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) 

9 Act of 2001 (Public Law 107–56; 115 Stat. 295) is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2005’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘March 31, 2006’’. 

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CLARENCE YATES,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

DELAWARE COUNTY COURT OF

COMMON PLEAS JUDGE FRANK T.
HAZEL,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 38 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of April

, 2017, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED , and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED

. The

Prothonotary is DIRECTED to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

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

R. 47.5.4.

REVISED OPINION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30497

Conference Calendar

 

DENNIS RAY PADEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KATHLEEN M. HAWK, KEITH HALL,

VIDRINE, DR., FRED GILLEY,

MICHAEL DAVIS, ROBERT D. HOLMES, 

ELWIN, DR., TOM BOYETTE, WALKER, DR.,

TURNBO, MR.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-708

- - - - - - - - - -

March 16, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

We sua sponte withdraw our prior opinion of February 10,

1998, and substitute the instant opinion. 

 Dennis Ray Paden, federal prisoner # 47044-079, is BARRED

from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) under the Prison
No. 97-30497

- 2 -

Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) because, on at least three

prior occasions while incarcerated, Paden has brought a civil

action or appeal in a United States court that was dismissed as

frivolous. See Paden v. Hawk, No. 96-10660 (5th Cir. Aug. 22,

1996)(unpublished); Paden v. Hall, No. 95-CV-02007 (W.D. La. May

16, 1996)(unpublished); Paden v. Holloman, No. 93-CV-01016 (S.D.

Tx. May 11, 1993) (unpublished); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);

Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, Paden’s IFP status is DECERTIFIED, and he may not

proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in

prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The appeal is DISMISSED. 

 Paden has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the

full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district

court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal. 

 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; IFP DECERTIFIED;

APPEAL DISMISSED.
From: Schimmel, Terry (Bricks ‐ Phenix City) <Terry.Schimmel@boral.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:27 PM

To: Telander, Jeff

Subject: Re: Question regarding CBI status of SSMP Plans  

  

Jeff, 

Good to hear from you and sorry for the slow reply. Per your request below Boral does not consider the 

referenced documents as CBI material. 

Thanks, 

Terry 

"Telander, Jeff" <Telander.Jeff@epa.gov> wrote: 

Hi Terry,

I hope you are doing well.

The plans you submitted on 2‐28‐2011 for Boral’s Bessemer, Salisbury, and Muskogee plants include the

following disclaimer:

“This document is considered company confidential and shall not be copied or carried outside of Boral

without management approval.”

I would appreciate it if you would please confirm that Boral does not consider those documents to be

confidential.

Thanks,

Jeff Telander

  

Overnight mail address:

US EPA

Mail Code D243‐02

109 TW Alexander Drive

RTP, NC  27709
==========================================================
Household Finance Corporation
Revolving Home Equity Loan 
Asset Backed Certificates - Series 1995-1
P & S Agreement Date:                          May 1, 1995
Original Settlement Date:                     May 25, 1995
Series Number of Class A-1 Certificates:         441919AE7
Series Number of Class A-2 Certificates:         441919AF4
Original Sale Balance:                        $474,825,000
==========================================================


                                                                  
           
            Sum of 1/21/97 - 12/22/97

1997 AGGREGATE PAYMENTS                                           
           
Distribution Dates

Distribution Date                                                 
           
Total 1997 (1)

Class A-1 Interest Distributed                  14,269,888.92
Class A-1 Interest Pymt Factor (per 1,000)       31.374460331
Class A-2 Interest Distributed                     628,358.81
Class A-2 Interest Pymt Factor (per 1,000)       31.417940500

Investor Principal Distribution A-1              98,280,892.39
Class A-1 Principal Pymt Factor (per 1,000)      216.085070936
Investor Principal Distribution A-2               4,321,724.85
Class A-2 Principal Pymt Factor (per 1,000)      216.086242587

Ending Class A-1 Principal Outstanding
Class A-1 Pool Factor
Ending Class A-2 Principal Outstanding
Class A-1 Pool Factor


(1) These amounts represent cash distributions paid by the trust
during the 1997 calendar year.

As such, they do not represent the economic accrual of interest
for tax purposes.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24438]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 16, 1997 / 
Notices

[[Page 48589]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to 
American Cyanamid Company of Princeton, New Jersey, an exclusive 
license to Serial No. 08/756,301, filed November 25, 1996, entitled ``A 
Baculovirus for the Control of Insect Pests.'' Notice of Availability 
for Serial No. 08/756,301 was published in the Federal Register on 
August 7, 1997.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
Room 415, Building 005, BARC-West, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2350.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's patent rights to 
this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public 
interest to so license this invention as American Cyanamid Company has 
submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The 
prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply 
with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The 
prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within sixty days 
from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research 
Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that 
the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements 
of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Richard M. Parry, Jr.,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-24438 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-U
#### Raymond BASS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2093.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 18, 1978.

Raymond Bass, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and KE-HOE, JJ.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, was charged by an information with possession of heroin. Pursuant to a jury verdict, he was adjudged guilty as charged and placed on probation for a period of three years, with the special condition that he serve one year in the Dade County Jail.

After a careful review of the record, it is our opinion that appellant’s conviction must be affirmed; however, we note that in sentencing appellant to one year incarceration, the trial court failed pursuant to Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975), to credit appellant for the time which he served while awaiting sentencing. Therefore, we remand the cause to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with Section 921.161(1).

Appellant need not be present at the time .of the resentencing. Except as specifically stated herein, all other aspects of the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Further, this court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the United States Supreme Court in *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), having deferred ruling on the motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed appellant a reasonable time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, upon full examination and consideration of the appeal, except as set forth above, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the public defender’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of conviction appealed is affirmed.

The sentence appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for sentencing in accordance with the instructions set forth herein.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded; and motion of public defender to withdraw as counsel granted.
#### Joe Lee AKINS, Albert Miller, and Samuel Johnson, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-231.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 25, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgments of the lower court hereby appealed are affirmed. See Williams v. State (Fla.1959) 110 So.2d 654; Williams v. State (Fla.1971) 247 So.2d 425.

CARROLL, DONALD K, Acting C. J., WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Theodore Li, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period
ended June 30, 2003 of Pacific Magtron International Corp.;

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 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. I am 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 me 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 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  registrant's  internal
control over financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

5. 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
function):

      a. all  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation of internal
controls  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: August 14, 2003


By: /s/ Theodore S. Li
    ------------------------------
    Theodore S. Li
    Chief Executive Officer/Chief
    Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1659
CLARENCE O. CARROLL, Petitioner, versus WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (03-0441-BLA) Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S.F. Raymond Smith, RUNDLE & RUNDLE, L.C., Pineville, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Douglas A. Smoot, Kathy L. Snyder, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Respondent Westmoreland Coal Company. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Clarence O. Carroll seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-45 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Carroll v. Westmoreland Coal Co. , No. 03-0441-BLA (BRB Mar. 31, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE of Louisiana v. William MALMAY.

No. 61603.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: Amended application for writs. Parish of Sabine.

Denied.