alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, William D. Snider, Chief Financial Officer of United Western Bancorp, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of United Western Bancorp, Inc.;
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading as 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 theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theRegistrant and have:
 a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report in being prepared;
 b. evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
 5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theRegistrant’s Board of Directors:
 a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theRegistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
/s/ William D. Snider
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Central Bancorp, 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15(d-5(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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):
    /s/ Paul S. FeeleyPaul S. FeeleySenior Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit
      23.1    CONSENT
      OF MOSS ADAMS LLP
      INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
      (Forms S-3 No. 333-109150, No. 333-104632, No. 333-100754, No. 333-87348,
      No. 333-51236, No. 333-96231, No. 333-82591, and No. 333-49001; and Forms
      S-8 No. 333-132345, 333-123396, 333-106502, 333-87368, No. 333-85721, No.
      333-68347, No. 333-66060, No. 333-59838, No. 333-07669, and No. 33-97350)
      and related Prospectuses of our report dated March 16, 2007, with respect
      to the consolidated financial statements of Socket Communications, Inc.
      included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
      2006. /s/
      Moss Adams LLP                                            San Francisco,
      California 
      March 16, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52713-52714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26775]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-3-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

October 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 1, 1997, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets 
listed on Appendix A to the filing, to become effective November 1, 
1997:
    Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets reflect 
modifications to its imbalance cash-out procedure to change the cash-
out index price calculation and to eliminate the tiered Index Price 
Multiplier. Williston Basin also states that the revised tariff sheets 
reflect revisions to its monthly balancing procedures to no longer 
delineate between transactions that are electronically monitored by 
telemetering and those that are not. In addition, the revised tariff 
sheets reflect a change in the date by which shippers must arrange for 
an Imbalance Trade and/or Imbalance Transfer transaction, all as more 
fully detailed in the filing.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the

[[Page 52714]]

appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26775 Filed 10-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

LIN WANG and JUN HUANG, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY 

COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

 No. 4:24-CV-01619 

 (Chief Judge Brann) 

 

ORDER 

DECEMBER 17, 2024 

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Allstate’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is DENIED; and 

2. Allstate shall file an answer in accordance with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:24-cv-01619-MWB Document 10 Filed 12/17/24 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-98738, No. 333-39407, No. 333-38730 and No. 333-67050)
pertaining to the Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Option
Plan, As Amended, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-53772)
pertaining to the Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-37941, No. 333-61477,
No. 333-79939, No. 333-95671 and No. 333-58206) of Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and in the related Prospectus of our report dated January 17, 2002, with respect
to the financial statements of Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Stamford Connecticut
March 25, 2002
EX-10.1: RESOLUTIONS APPROVING AN AMENDMENT



 



Exhibit 10.1


RESOLUTIONS APPROVING AN AMENDMENT


TO THE AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.




DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR DIRECTORS (THE “PLAN”)




     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective 30 September 2002, Plan
Section 5(b) shall be, and it hereby is, amended and restated in its entirety
to read as follows:



	 	5.	 	Elective Deferrals




	 	(b)	 	An account (the “Air Products Stock Account”) deemed
to be invested in Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. common stock,
par value $1.00 (“common stock”). The Company shall credit the
Air Products Stock Account with that number of units (including
fractions) obtained by dividing the amount of such deferred
compensation by the Fair Market Value of a share of common stock
(i) on the second business day before the date credited to the
Air Products Stock Account for retainer and meeting fees, and
(ii) on the effective date specified in the Program for
crediting Directors with initial and annual deferred stock unit
awards. For purposes of the Plan, Fair Market Value of a share
of common stock on any date (the “valuation date”) shall be
equal to the mean of the high and low sale prices on the New
York Stock Exchange, as reported on the composite transaction
tape, for such date, or, if no sales were quoted on such date,
on the most recent preceding date on which sales were quoted.
The units thus calculated are herein referred to as “deferred
stock units.”



     RESOLVED FURTHER, that the proper officers of the Company be, and they
each hereby are, authorized and empowered, in the name and on behalf of the
Company, to make, execute, and deliver such instruments, documents, and
certificates and to do and perform such other acts and things as may be
necessary or appropriate to accomplish the amendment of the Plan as aforesaid,
and to carry out the intent and accomplish the purpose of these resolutions.



	 	 	 
	 	 	
APCI BOARD OF DIRECTORS
	 	 	
19 September 2002
Opinion filed August 2, 2012



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________


### No. 11

- 12

- 00 168

- CV

__________

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET

ZELMA FRALEY, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. P14854

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On June 22, 2012, Dan Fraley filed a pro se notice of appeal from various “previous

orders ” of the trial court “ in all hearings o f the past including May 31, 2012 hearing.” Upon
reviewing the documents on file in this case and contacting the county clerk’s office , th is c ourt

wrote appellant on June 29, 2012, and informed hi m that the notice of appeal appeared to be
untimely because the judgment was signed on November 9, 2011, 226 da ys prior to the filing of
the notice of appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1. We also noted in the letter that , according to the

county clerk, the trial court had not entered any order stemming from a May 3 1, 2012 hearing.
We requested that appellant respond and show grounds to continue the appeal , and we informed
appellant that this appeal was subject to dismissal unless he responded on or before July 16,

2012

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3. Thereafter, we granted a ten

- day extension on the due date for
appellant’s response.
Appellant has respon d e d, asserting complaints involving the entry of the November 9,
2011 order and the May 31, 2012 hearing . With his response, appellant sent a copy of the2

November 9, 2011 order approving the account for final settlement of the estate and a copy of
the reporter’s record from the May 31, 2012 hearing, from which there has been no written order
or judgment. Appellant states that his “appeal” is based on t he “hearing” of May 31.
To the extent that appellant is appeal ing the November 2011 order, his notice of appeal i s untimely. See Rule 26.1. Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to
consider an appeal. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys. , 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005);

Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank , 227 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.);
see also Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 6 15, 617 (Tex. 1997).
Although appellant’s notice of appeal would have be en timely from an order or judgment
entered at the time of the May 31, 2012 hearing, the May 31 hearing did not result in any order
or judgment. Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final
judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. S ys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835, 840

– 41 (Tex. 2007);

Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001). Because the trial court did not enter an
order or judgment related to t he May 31 hearing

, we have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal

related to t hat hearing

. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 42.3(a).
Accordingly, the appeal is dismi ssed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

August 2, 2012
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.
#### Nellie W. TUTEN, Appellant, v. Evelyn M. BLACK, as Administratrix of the Estate of John A. Black, deceased, Appellee.

No. N-530.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1971.

Ayres, Swigert, Cluster & Tucker, Ocala, for appellant.

Larry Klein of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, McKeown & Dell, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in favor of appel-lee. The principal question preserved on appeal concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to establish by a preponderance thereof that the decedent consciously suffered pain between the time of the accident and his death.

In our review of the foregoing issue presented for decision, we have given due consideration to the applicable principle that a judgment of the trial court reaches the appellate court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Although the evidence adduced at the trial on the question involved herein is far from overwhelming, we believe it is sufficient to support the finding of the jury that it established by a preponderance of all the evidence that the decedent did consciously suffer some degree of pain prior to his death. The degree of consciousness, the amount of suffering experienced by the decedent, and the length of time he lived following the accident were questions to be properly resolved by the jury. It is not the province of this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trier of the facts. These findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing that the evidence demonstrates the conclusions reached are unsupportable and erroneous.1

The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

RAWLS, Acting G. J., and WIGGIN-TON, and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.

1

. Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson, (Fla.App.1965) 177 So.2d 50; Stoller v. Jaffe, (Fla.App.1961) 125 So.2d 310.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements (Nos. 333-110090, 333-111092, 333-122043, and 133-136585) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 333-49810, 333-106151, 333-106152, 333-106153, 333-114377, and 333-136697) on Form S-8 of Tarrant Apparel Group of our report dated
March 17, 2009 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements and the financial statement schedule which appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tarrant Apparel Group for the year ended December 31, 2008.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ SINGERLEWAK LLP    
|SINGERLEWAK LLP        
|                       
|Los Angeles, California
|March 17, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LESLIE R. KELLY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 03-368 Erie

v. )

)

MARTY SAPKO, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on November 7, 2003,

and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report

and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.

 The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 64], filed on July

24, 2006, recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,

motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 58] be granted in part and denied in part. The

parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service

was made on Plaintiff by certified mail and on Defendants. Objections were filed by

Defendants on August 7, 2006 [Doc. 65]. After de novo review of the motion and

documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and the

objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 2006;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the

alternative, motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 58] is GRANTED in part and

DENIED in part. Specifically, Defendants’ motion with respect to Plaintiff’s FTCA claim

against the United States is GRANTED and such claim is dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction based upon Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies;

and Defendants’ motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim

against the individual Defendants. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 64] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

Case 1:03-cv-00368-SJM-SPB Document 68 Filed 08/16/06 Page 1 of 2
2

on July 24, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:03-cv-00368-SJM-SPB Document 68 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Roy M. FORDEN, Jr., Appellant, v. Carol A. FORDEN, Appellee.

No. 69-130.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

July 15, 1969.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Louis Weissing, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26593]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RO97-6-000]


Trunkline Gas Company; Notice of Request for Extension of Waiver

October 2, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 15, 1997, Trunkline Gas Company, 
(Trunkline) in compliance with the March 13, 1997 \1\ and May 21, 1997 
\2\ orders of the Commission in the captioned docket tendered for 
filing a request for an extension of the six month waiver previously 
granted by the Commission with respect to compliance with the data 
elements and formatting as adopted by the Commission in Order No. 587.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Trunkline Gas Company, 78 FERC para. 61,284 (1997).
    \2\ Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 79 FERC para. 61,223 
(1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trunkline states that under the waiver, it was required to submit 
its requests for changes to the data elements to the Gas Industry 
Standards Board (GISB). Trunkline states that it has implemented the 
changes already approved by GISB, but requests an extension of the 
waiver until the Commission adopts the next version of the GISB 
standards. With respect to those request still pending at GISB, 
Trunkline requests an additional six month extension of time.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such protests should comply with 
principles set forth in the Commission's May 21, 1997 order and must be 
filed by October 14, 1997. Protests will be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26593 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
SulfurodeHidrógeno (H2S)

DATOS

RÁPIDOS

Departamento del Trabajo de EE.UU.

www.osha.gov (800) 321-OSHA

Para información más completa:

Administración de 

Seguridad y Salud 

Ocupacional

El sulfuro de hidrógeno es un gas incoloro, inflamable y

extremadamente peligroso con olor a “huevo podrido”.

Ocurre de forma natural en petróleo crudo y gas natural, y

puede ser producido por la descomposición de materia

orgánica y desechos humanos/animales (por ejemplo, aguas

negras). Es más pesado que el aire y puede acumularse en

áreas bajas y cerradas, pobremente ventiladas, como sótanos,

bocas de registros, bóvedas subterráneas para líneas de

alcantarillado y teléfonos/eléctricas. 

Detección por el Olor

• Se puede olor a niveles bajos, pero con exposición continua a bajos niveles o a concentraciones más altas, usted

pierde su habilidad para oler el gas aún cuando todavía

esté presente.

◆ A concentraciones más altas – su habilidad para oler el

gas se puede perder instantáneamente. 

• NO dependa de su sentido de olfato para indicar la presencia continua de este gas o para la advertencia de concentraciones peligrosas.

Efectos sobre la Salud 

Los efectos sobre la salud varían dependiendo de cuánto

tiempo y a qué nivel usted está expuesto. Las personas

asmáticas pueden estar en mayor riesgo.

• Concentraciones bajas – irritación de ojos, nariz, garganta o

sistema respiratorio; los efectos pueden tardar en aparecer.

• Concentraciones moderadas – efectos más severos en los

ojos y la respiración, dolor de cabeza, mareos, nausea, tos,

vómitos y dificultad al respirar.

• Concentraciones altas – estado de shock, convulsiones,

incapacidad para respirar, coma, muerte; los efectos

pueden ser extremadamente rápidos (en pocos respiros).

Antes de Entrar a Áreas con Posible Sulfuro de Hidrógeno

• Una persona cualificada necesita evaluar la presencia y

concentración de sulfuro de hidrógeno en el aire utilizando

instrumentos de prueba. Esta persona también determina

la necesidad de precauciones contra fuego/explosión.

• Si el gas está presente, el espacio debe ser ventilado.

• Si el gas no puede removerse, use protección respiratoria

apropiada y cualquier otro equipo necesario de protección

personal (EPP), de rescate y comunicación. Las atmósferas

que contienen concentraciones altas (más de 100 ppm) se

consideran un Peligro Inmediato a la Vida y Salud (IDLH,

por sus siglas en inglés) por lo que se requiere un equipo

autónomo de respiración (SCBA, por sus siglas en inglés).