alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Mackinac Financial Corporation (the registrant);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.
 Dated: August 20, 2010
    /s/ Ernie R. KruegerErnie R. KruegerExecutive Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
#### Lorraine Rouff CHRISTEN v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System et al.

No. 61232.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1978.

In re: Lorraine Rouff Christen applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 351 So.2d 1307.

Writ denied.

DIXON and DENNIS, JJ., would vote to grant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7834

MICHAEL F. DEHONEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM D. CATOE, Deputy Commissioner, individually and/or in their official capacities;

MICHAEL MOORE, Director,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;

PARKER EVATT, Commissioner,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-94-1903-21BE)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 5, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
* The order also denied Dehoney’s motion to amend and motion

to stay the proceedings pending discovery.

2

Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Crouch Coleman,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Michael F. Dehoney appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint.* We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Dehoney v. Catoe, No. CA-94-1903-21BE (D.S.C. Nov. 19, 1997). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Fansteel Inc. as of June 30, 1999 and the related
condolidated statement of income for the six months ended June 30, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to the Company's Form 10Q filing for the
period ended June 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         193,106
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,628,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                   253,300
<INVENTORY>                                 22,259,136
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            47,640,128
<PP&E>                                      71,808,565
<DEPRECIATION>                              51,157,302
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              91,773,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,578,941
<BONDS>                                      2,334,744
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,747,145
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,466,275
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                91,773,105
<SALES>                                     75,271,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            75,271,591
<CGS>                                       61,815,343
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               71,350,735
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               111,150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (14,058)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,809,706
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,224,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,585,706
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,585,706
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

November 10, 2014

Mitchell Stenner

State of New York

Re: In the Matter of Made in the USA Brand, LLC

File No. 142 3121, Docket No. C-4497

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed consent agreement in 

the above-referenced proceeding. The Commission has considered your comment and placed it on the 

public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 

4.9(b)(6)(ii).

In your comment, you state that it should not be legal to label products as “Made in USA” unless 

those products are actually made in the USA, and request that the Commission require marketers to 

substantiate their U.S.-origin and other claims. You do not propose any revisions to the draft complaint 

or the consent agreement.

Section 5 of the FTC Act requires companies to possess substantiation for their marketing 

claims, and the Commission’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S.-Origin Claims provides specific 

guidance to marketers on how to substantiate those claims.1

 In particular, the Policy Statement provides 

that when a marketer makes an unqualified “Made in USA” claim, the marketer should – at the time the 

representation is made – possess and rely upon a reasonable basis establishing that the product is “all or 

virtually all” made in the United States. In this case, Section II of the consent agreement specifically 

requires Made in the USA Brand, LLC either to possess competent and reliable evidence substantiating 

its representations that products are made in the USA, or to disclose that it relies on self-certification to 

substantiate its clients’ claims.

Therefore, after considering your comment, the Commission has determined that the relief set 

forth in the consent agreement is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the 

complaint. At this time, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by 

issuing the Decision and Order in final form without modification. The final Decision and Order and 

other relevant materials are available on the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the 

Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work, and we thank you again for your 

comment.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

 

1 See 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) and Federal Trade Commission, Issuance of Enforcement Policy Statement on 

“Made in USA” and Other U.S. Origin Claims, 62 Fed. Reg. 63756, 63766 (December 2, 1997), 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/1997/december/ 971202madeinusa.pdf.
M e nu

L as t u pd a te d o n O c t o ber 9 , 2015 R e l a t e d T

o p i c s : A pp r ov e d A i r S t a te I m p l e me n t a t i o n P l a n s ( S IPs)


## A p p r ov e d SI P s i n R e g i o n 9
A ri z o n a , C a l i fo r n i a , H a w a i i , N e va d a , t h e P a c i f i c Is l a n d s , a nd T r i b a l N at i o ns

C l i c k t h e t a bs b e l o w f

o r li nks t o app r ov e d S t a t e I mp l e m e n t a ti on P l a ns ( S I P s ) , T r i b a l I mp l e m e n t a ti on P l a ns ( T I P s ) , a nd F e d er a l I mp l e m e n t a ti on P l a ns ( F I P s ) w ith i n E P A 's R e g i on 9 s t a t e s a nd t er r i t o r i e s.

S IPs

T I Ps

F I Ps


## S tat e I m p l e m e n tat i o n P l a ns

R e g i on 9 A i r P l an A c t i ons i n c l ud e fe d e ra l a c t i on on S I P s t o m ak e th e m f e d e r a ll y e n f

o rc e a b l e
. S I Ps
m ay c on t a i n r

u l e s o r r e gu l a ti ons w h i c h c on t r o l po l l u ti on fr o m s t a ti on ary , a re a , o r m ob il e sour c e s.
A r i z ona C a li f o r n ia H a w a ii N e v a da A pp r ov e d S I P s i n R e g i o n 9 | A p p ro v e d Ai r State I m p l e m e n tati on P la n
. .. h t t p : / /www 2

. e p a
. go v/app r ov e d

- s i p s /ap pro v e d- s i p s -r e g i on -9

1 of 1 1 1 / 2 3 / 2 0 15 3 : 58 PM
CROMPTON & KNOWLES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(In thousands, except per share data)


                PRIMARY
                Quarter Ended         Nine Months Ended
                  Sept.28,   Sept.30,   Sept.28,   Sept.30,
                    1996       1995       1996       1995

Earnings
Earnings(loss) before
  extraordinary
  charge        $ (69,572) $  11,812  $ (24,042) $ 143,296
Extraordinary
  loss on early 
  extinguishment
  of debt              -          -        (441)    (8,279)

Net earnings    $ (69,572) $  11,812  $ (24,483) $ 135,017

Shares
Weighted average shares
 outstanding       72,140     71,445     71,747     67,995
Common stock
 equivalents           -         786         -         932

Average shares
 outstanding       72,140     72,231     71,747     68,927

Per share
Earnings(loss) before
  extraordinary
  charge        $   (0.97) $    0.16  $   (0.34) $    2.08
Extraordinary
  loss on early 
  extinguishment
  of debt              -          -          -       (0.12)

Net earnings    $   (0.97) $    0.16  $   (0.34) $    1.96


                FULLY DILUTED
                Quarter Ended         Nine Months Ended
                  Sept.28,   Sept.30,   Sept.28,   Sept.30,
                    1996       1995       1996       1995

Earnings
Earnings(loss) before
  extraordinary
  charge        $ (69,572) $  11,812  $ (24,042) $ 143,296
Extraordinary
  loss on early 
  extinguishment
  of debt              -          -        (441)    (8,279)

Net earnings    $ (69,572) $  11,812  $ (24,483) $ 135,017

Shares
Weighted average shares
 outstanding       72,140     71,445     71,747     67,995
Common stock
 equivalents           -         811         -         950

Average shares
 outstanding       72,140     72,256     71,747     68,945

Per share
Earnings(loss) before
  extraordinary
  charge        $   (0.97) $    0.16  $   (0.34) $    2.08
Extraordinary
  loss on early 
  extinguishment
  of debt              -          -          -       (0.12)

Net earnings    $   (0.97) $    0.16  $   (0.34) $    1.96
#### Ross W. HEILMAN, Appellant, v. James W. GEIGER, Appellee.

No. 70-671.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 24, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Otis Farrington, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**





**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**





**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**





SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of The Banker's Store, Inc. (the "Company")
      on Form 10- QSB for the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sam
      Stone Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      based on my knowledge:





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





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







*Dated:
                April 13, 2007**/s/
                Sam Stone**Sam
                Stone**Chief
                Financial Officer*
----

|  | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78m(a) or 78o(d),      and, |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:  June      9, 2008 | /s/ Donald W.      Barney                            |
|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                               | Donald      W. Barney                                |
|                               | President,      Treasurer and Chief FinancialOfficer |

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of PASSUR Aerospace,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2012
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jeffrey P. Devaney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

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

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

                                           By:  /s/ Jeffrey P. Devaney
                                                -----------------------
                                                Jeffrey P. Devaney
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                February 1, 2013
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 2, 2014

No. 04-13-00346-CR

Jassen BARNES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR9420

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

State’s brief is deemed filed as of May 29, 2014.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
1

Ogulei, David

From: Krag Petterson <Kragp@cooperenvironmental.com>

Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 2:25 PM

To: Ogulei, David

Cc: John Cooper

Subject: Quote

Attachments: Quote CEMS SCAQMD02052014pdf.pdf

David, 

Per our conversation I have attached the quote for the South Coast Air Monitoring District CEMS rental and spoke with 

Dr. Philip Fine to let him know you would be calling. I have also called and left a message with our other 640 purchaser 

and will let you know when I hear back from them. 

Best Regards, 

Krag 

Krag Petterson 

Vice President 

Cooper Environmental Services, LLC 

10180 SW Nimbus Ave Ste. J6 

Portland, OR 97223 

503-670-8335
Charity Request Form

Application for Charities to Raise Funds or 

Solicit Donations on the Premises

You must get approval to raise funds or seek donations in my business. Complete this form 

to request approval. Please attach brochures or other materials about your organization to 

help us make a decision. After considering your request, we will contact you.

Date of application 

About the Organization

Name of organization 

Address 

City State ZIP 

Phone number 

Email 

Website

Federal EIN 

Is this a 501(c)(3) organization? Yes No

How long has the organization been in operation? 

Is the organization in compliance with all filing requirements of the Internal Revenue Service and the 

state regulators? Yes No 

Purpose of organization:

Page 1
About You 

Your name 

Do you reside in this state? Yes No 

How can we contact you? 

Email Phone 

Do you have the charity’s permission to solicit donations on its behalf? Yes No

Name and contact information of the person at the charity who approved this solicitation.

Name 

Email Phone 

About Your Request 

What date(s) would you like to raise funds on the premises? 

What time of day? Morning Afternoon Evening

Have you previously had a fundraiser at our location? Yes No

What type of activity will you conduct? (Will you set up a table or other equipment? Will you hand out

leaflets or brochures? How many people will be involved? Will you collect cash? Will you sell food or other

items? If so, what will you sell?) Please provide a detailed description.

How will the cash or other donations be safeguarded?

How will you deliver donations you collect to the charity? 

Thank you! We will get back to you soon. 

This form was adapted from the Ohio Attorney General’s A Charity Guide for Business: How to Review Requests and Avoid Scams. Page 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         293,735
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       5,889,654
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               172,216
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    895,116
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         252,489
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           252,623
<LOANS>                                      5,641,090
<ALLOWANCE>                                    104,628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,634,836
<DEPOSITS>                                   6,662,496
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             86,469
<LONG-TERM>                                    162,903<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,673
<OTHER-SE>                                     606,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               7,634,836
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                367,392
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               32,378
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 4,162
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               403,932
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             140,936
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             149,366
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          254,566
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   71,209
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                234,952
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 69,676
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      43,240
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,240
<EPS-BASIC>                                     129.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   129.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0<F2>
<LOANS-NON>                                      6,188
<LOANS-PAST>                                    55,545
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0<F2>
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0<F2>
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               121,877
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  104,598
<RECOVERIES>                                    15,187
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              104,628
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0<F2>
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0<F2>
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES 92,070 IN CAPITAL NOTES
<F2>THE INFORMATION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR INTERIM REPORTING PURPOSES.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Beatrice Marie HOLSENBACK, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 72-816.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
#### Charles J. FINS and Jean M. Fins, his wife, Appellant, v. MOBILE DIVERSIFIED ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellee.

No. 72-148.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 27, 1972.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; James A. McCauley, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7349

KENNETH TYRONE CHATMAN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director VDOC , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. Norman K. Moon , Senior District Judge. ( 7:16

- cv - 00540

- NKM

- RSB )

Submitted : December 19, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Kenneth Tyrone Chatman, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions a re not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Tyrone Chatman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely filed and procedurally defaulted . The order is not appealable unless a c ircuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When t he district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debata ble claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chatman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to pro ceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED