alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Steven T. Klitzing, Chief Financial Officer, of CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc. for theyear ended December 31, 2005;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.   Date: July 18, 2007 By: /s/ Steven T. Klitzing
# Summary

HAF Quarterly Report - Submissions Status - Q1 2023

# Demographics by Type

HAF Q1 2023 Quarterly Report  - Application Data Breakdown

# Assistance by Participant

HAF Q1 2023 Quarterly Report  - Breakdown of Participant Program Assistance to households

# Applications by Participant

HAF Q1 2023 Quarterly Report  - Breakdown of Applications by Participant

# Sheet2

# image1.png
EXHIBIT23.4 CONSENT OF ANGELO GRANDILLO AND BBA INC.
   Alderon Iron Ore Corp.
 United States Securities and Exchange Commission
  Dear Sirs:
  RE: ALDERON IRON ORE CORP.
  I, Angelo Grandillo, Eng., M.Eng.., Associate and Project Manager of BBA Inc. do hereby consent to filing of the following report.
  Reference is made to the technical report entitled “Feasibility Study of the Rose Deposit and Resource Estimate for the Mills Lake Deposit of the Kamistiatusset (Kami) Iron Ore Property, Labrador for Alderon Iron Ore Corp.”dated effective December 17, 2012, which the undersigned has co-authored on behalf of BBA Inc. for Alderon Iron Ore Corp. (the “Technical Report”).
  I, on behalf of myself and on behalf of BBA Inc., hereby consent to the inclusion of references to my name and the name of BBA Inc. and references to, and information derived from, the Technical Report, in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Alderon Iron Ore Corp., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Dated this 22ndday of March, 2013.
       “Angelo Grandillo”Angelo Grandillo, Eng., M.Eng.
TBAC RECOMMENDED US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 1st QUARTER 2022*

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

NEW

MONEY

Net BILLS Issuance for the quarter -30.82

SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT** MONEY

COUPONS

CHANGE^

3-Year Note 1/18 52.00 -2.00

10-Year Note (r) 1/18 35.00 -3.00

30-Year Bond (r) 1/18 22.00 -2.00 70.36 38.64

20-Year Bond (r) 1/31 20.00 -4.00

10-Year TIPS 1/31 17.00 1.00

2-Year Note 1/31 54.00 -2.00

2-Year FRN 1/31 26.00 -2.00

5-Year Note 1/31 55.00 -2.00

7-Year Note 1/31 53.00 -3.00 134.18 90.82

3-Year Note 2/15 50.00 -2.00

10-Year Note 2/15 35.00 -3.00

30-Year Bond 2/15 23.00 -2.00 55.05 52.95

2-Year FRN (r) 2/25 24.00 -2.00 0.00 24.00

20-Year Bond 2/28 19.00 -4.00

30-Year TIPS 2/28 9.00 0.00

2-Year Note 2/28 52.00 -2.00

5-Year Note 2/28 53.00 -2.00

7-Year Note 2/28 50.00 -3.00 84.65 98.35

3-Year Note 3/15 48.00 -2.00

10-Year Note (r) 3/15 32.00 -3.00

30-Year Bond (r) 3/15 20.00 -2.00 20.86 79.14

2-Year FRN (r) 3/25 24.00 -2.00 0.00 24.00

20-Year Bond (r) 3/31 16.00 -4.00

10-Year TIPS (r) 3/31 15.00 1.00

2-Year Note 3/31 50.00 -2.00

5-Year Note 3/31 51.00 -2.00

7-Year Note 3/31 47.00 -3.00 80.07 98.93

952.00 445.18 506.82

Estimates are italicized. r = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 476

* This Financing table is meant to be illustrative based on meeting discussions and does not indicate how Treasury will actually issue

debt in the future.

** Maturing amount is based on private holdings as of 10/29/2021 and subject to change based on Fed purchases.

^ Change is with respect to previous auction. For securities with reopenings, change from new cusip to new cusip, 1st reopening

 to 1st reopening, and etc.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Victor Allen HAWORTH, aka Victor Wickenhagen, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-30378.

D.C. No. CR-01-00026-FVS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Victor Allen Haworth appeals the 151-month sentence imposed following his *255guilty-plea conviction of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He argues that the district court erroneously sentenced him as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1. We have jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and apply deferential review to the district court’s career offender classification. *See Buford v. United States,*532 U.S. 59, 64-66, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001).

Haworth argues that the two prior felony convictions underlying the district court’s career offender classification are related and must be counted as one. According to Haworth, the convictions are related because they were part of a single common scheme and were effectively consolidated for sentencing. *See*U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) & app. note 3. We disagree.

Contrary to Haworth’s argument, “a common modus operandi is not enough to demonstrate a single common scheme or plan.” *United States v. Davis,*922 F.2d 1385, 1389 (9th Cir.1991), *abrogated on other grounds by Buford v. United States,*532 U.S. 59, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001). Two offenses are not part of a common scheme or plan where, as here, they were committed one month apart in separate states, involved different victims and were prosecuted by different state agencies. *See id.*at 1390.

The sentences on the two robberies were not effectively consolidated. They were imposed three months apart by separate courts in different states. Neither court intended that the sentence it imposed was to run concurrently with that of the other. The Idaho court made no mention of the Washington robbery conviction, and the Washington court ordered incarceration to run concurrently with any sentence “for parole violation on offenses *previously*convicted of.” That the two sentences did run concurrently does not render them effectively consolidated when neither sentencing court so intended. *See Davis,*922 F.2d at 1390-91.

The district court properly sentenced Haworth as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS LISTED ON PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001039785
<NAME> CONTINENTAL GLOBAL GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          23,561
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,251
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     33,045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,448
<PP&E>                                          26,370
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,540
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,784
<BONDS>                                        120,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                1
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (49,845)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,605
<SALES>                                         41,826
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,826
<CGS>                                           35,159
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,159
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    78
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,947
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,026)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,026)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,026)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Herbert LUTCHER.

No. 61440.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

In re: Herbert Lutcher, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of St. Bernard.

Writ denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31520]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration
[AC No. 121-29A]


Proposed Revised Advisory Circular--Carry-On Baggage

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments on proposed revision to Advisory Circular 
(AC) 121-29, Carry-On Baggage.

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

SUMMARY: The proposed Advisory Circular (AC) provides guidance about 
the information that should be contained in a certificated air 
carrier's approved carry-on baggage program and updates, provides 
clarification, and additional information to AC 121-29, Carry-On 
Baggage.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 2, 1998.

COMMENTS INVITED: Comments are invited on all aspects of the proposed 
AC. Commenters should give special attention to definition of proper 
stowage of carry-on baggage. Commenters must identify file number AC 
121-29A.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments and requests for copies of the proposed AC 
to: Federal Aviation Administration, AFS-203, 800 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donell Pollard, AFS-203, at the above 
address, telephone (202) 267-3735 or (202) 267-8166 (6:00 a.m. to 3:30 
p.m. est).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FAA personnel, certificated air carriers, 
airline personnel, and the public have asked the FAA to clarify 
existing policy found in AC 121-29, 14 CFR section 121.589, and in the 
model carry-on baggage programs. The FAA agrees that additional policy 
guidance is needed because of changes in the airline industry, such as 
reduction in personnel in the gate area. In addition, revisions to AC 
121-29 are needed to add material that was otherwise omitted and to 
clarify certain confusing sections of the original guidance. The 
inclusion of an example of an acceptable definition of proper stowage 
should not be construed as invalidating any previously approved carry-
on baggage programs.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 25, 1997.
Richard O. Gordon,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 97-31520 Filed 12-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7071

PERVELL MASCEO LYNCH, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus LORETTA KELLEY, Warden of Sussex 1 State Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:06-cv-01359-LMB) Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 26, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pervell Masceo Lynch, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Pervell Masceo Lynch seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lynch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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
Egypt – Giza North Power Project

June 8, 2010

U.S. Position

The Giza North Power Project in Egypt will contribute to improved security and efficiency of the 

electricity supply by increasing power generation based on efficient thermal power generation 

technology. The project is well aligned with the Bank’s CAS Progress Report for Egypt, which 

includes the goal for the energy sector of enhancing the provision of public goods through 

modernized infrastructure services to achieve higher growth. The United States supports this 

project and the Egyptian government’s efforts to secure stable and efficient electricity sources 

for its citizens.

While the Egyptian authorities have made considerable strides in energy sector reforms, the 

United States is concerned that some of the government’s key reforms have slipped, particularly 

rationalizing electricity tariffs and submitting the new draft electricity law to Parliament during 

the current Parliamentary session. The United States encourages the authorities to proceed 

expeditiously in obtaining Parliamentary approval of the electricity law, and encourages Bank 

Staff to continue to engage the Egyptian government in strengthening electricity tariff and 

subsidy policies. 

The private sector can play a significant role in bringing resources to bear in support of the 

government’s energy objectives. To that end, the United States encourages the Egyptian 

authorities to seek private sector investment in future power generation projects, and supports the 

technical assistance portion of this project which will not only help Egypt promote private sector 

investment in electricity generation, but will also help Egypt develop a power sector strategy and 

promote energy efficiency.
NUMBER 13-13-00313-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

DANIEL LYNE, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 445th District Court 

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s unopposed motion to abate to correct 

defect in appellate record. The reporter’s record does not contain exhibits that were 

admitted at trial. The parties request that this Court abate the appeal for thirty days to 
2

allow the parties to correct the record. The parties advise they will attempt to submit the 

exhibits by agreement. If an agreement cannot be reached, the parties will set a hearing 

with the trial court to determine the outcome of the dispute. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(e).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and the 

unopposed motion to abate, is of the opinion that the motion to abate to correct defect in 

appellate record is GRANTED. This appeal is ordered ABATED until December 23,

2013, or until further order of this Court. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

12th day of December, 2013.
#### Laris HEBERT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG JIM’S, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3222.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 24, 1970.

*274Pugh, Buatt, Landry & Pugh, by Lawrence G. Pugh, Jr., Crowley, for plainti f f-appellee.

Duncan M. Smith, Jr., and Thomas E. Guilbeau, Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.

En Banc.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action by the purchaser of a mobile home to void and set aside the sale on the grounds that the mobile home contained redhibitory defects. The trial court granted judgment in favor of plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the original return date of January 6, 1970, was extended from time to time by the trial court, and the record was not lodged in this court until July 1, 1970. The plaintiff attributes this delay to the defendant-appellant’s untimely payment of cost “or otherwise.”

Pages 45, 46, and 47 of the record contain three motions for an extension of the return date. All of these motions were at the instance of Oliver J. LeBlanc, Clerk of Court for the Parish of Lafayette, and they were all based on the grounds that the “oral testimony has not yet been filed in the matter and it is necessary to extend the return date so that the transcript can be properly prepared.”

There is nothing in the record that indicates that the failure to file the oral testimony can be attributed to the defendant-appellant. Accordingly, the plaintiff-appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal must be denied.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.
#### Lester Leroy RIDDLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-234.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 12, 1970.

Louis O. Frost, Jr., Public Defender, and Gerald Sohn, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See Rivers v. State (Fla.1969) 226 So.2d 337; Myrick v. State (Fla.App.1965) 177 So.2d 845; Tomlinson v. State (1937) 129 Fla. 658, 176 So. 543.

CARROLL, DONALD, K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
#### O. R. BARRETT v. Ronnie J. ST. AMANT et ux.

No. 47205.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 24, 1973.

Harris Sullivan, Jr., Mendenhall, for appellant.

J. W. Walker, Aleita M. Sullivan, Men-denhall, for appellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, SMITH, ROBERTSON, and SUGG, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Simpson County; Eugene C. Tullos, Chancellor.

Affirmed.
#### STATE ex rel. HABERLE v. DOWNEY.

No. 38148.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 216 So.2d 267.
#### Gene George BARRON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Willie JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Julius RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 41693-41695.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 20, 1972.

Jerry Mosca and Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appellant Gene George Barron, Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants Willie Jones and Julius Richardson.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from judgments of the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County. Appellants *116were convicted of conspiracy to violate lottery laws and assisting in conducting a lottery. The decision sought to be reviewed directly passes on the validity of Fla.Stat. § 849.09, F.S.A., prohibiting lotteries, thereby giving this Court jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to Fla.Const. Article V, Section 4(2), F.S.A.

After argument and upon careful consideration of the record and briefs, we conclude that the Criminal Court of Record correctly determined Fla.Stat. § 849.09, F.S.A., to be valid. As to appellants’ remaining points on appeal, it is our judgment that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Accordingly, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ„ and DREW, J. (Retired), concur.
#### Ernest LONG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 19, 1973.

Russell W. Layton, Orlando, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Hawkins v. State, Fla.1967, 199 So.2d 276, 278.

REED, C. J„ and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
#### Harold F. CRONIN, as Administrator of the Estate of John Joseph Cronin, et al., Appellants, v. REGENCY MOTELS, INC., Appellee.

No. 72-181.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 8, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.