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

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF**

**THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Paul V. Hoagland,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Friendly Ice Cream Corporation;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)   Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)   Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a)   Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b)   Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:April 26, 2004
|   | /s/  PAUL V. HOAGLAND                                         |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Executive Vice President of Administration  and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
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 Wireless Frontier Internet, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kelly E. Simmons, 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:

      (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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Date:  January 7, 2005                  By: /s/ Kelly E. Simmons
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Kelly E. Simmons
                                           Chief Financial Officer
1

Eric H. Holder, Jr., has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the

United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3416

___________

Cesar Gerardo Zambrano De La Cruz, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.,1

 Attorney General, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 6, 2009

Filed: May 7, 2009

___________

Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Cesar Gerardo Zambrano De La Cruz (Cesar), a native of Mexico, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an

immigration judge’s (IJ’s) order of removal and denial of cancellation of removal.

After careful review of the record, see Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 200, 203-05 (2d

Cir. 2001) (standard of review), we conclude that as an alien who was convicted of

an aggravated felony--first-degree criminal damage to property under Minn. Stat.
-2-

§ 609.595.1(3) (2001)--Cesar is removable, see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)

(aggravated-felony conviction renders alien removable); 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F)

(aggravated felony includes crime of violence for which term of imprisonment is at

least one year); 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) (crime of violence is, inter alia, offense that by its

nature involves substantial risk that physical force against person or property of

another may be used in course of committing offense); cf. Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543

U.S. 1, 9-11 (2004) (question to determine whether offense is crime of violence under

§ 16 is whether offender risks having to use physical force in committing offense),

and he is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)

(aggravated-felony conviction renders alien ineligible for cancellation of removal).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

______________________________
#### Mrs. Nancy Siepman, wife of Ronald HOTZ v. Ronald HOTZ.

No. 60171.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1977.

In re: Ronald Hotz applying for certiora-ri, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 346 So.2d 326.

Writ denied. The result is correct.
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60399

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DERRICK J. HANDSPIKE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Mississippi

(4:94-CR-98-S)

February 3, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Derrick J. Handspike appeals his conviction by a jury of conspiracy to

possess cocaine base with intent to distribute and for possession of more than

50 grams of cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
2

§§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. His appeal purports to challenge the sufficiency of the

evidence.

Our review of the record and briefs reflects that Handspike actually

challenges credibility evaluations made by the jury, a challenge rarely accepted at

the appellate level. Our review discloses no reversible error and the convictions

and sentences are AFFIRMED.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00132

- CV

In re Carla Lorene Cox §

§

§

§

§

§ Original Proceeding

From the 235th District Court

of Cooke County (14

- 00439)

July 23, 2015

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

Concurrence and Dissent by Justice

Walker



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the petition for writ of mandamus in this case

and holds that there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered tha t

the petition for writ of mandamus is denied

.

It is further ordered that relator Carla Lorene Cox shall pay all costs of this

proceeding, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

________________ Just ice Bonnie Sudderth
<TABLE>
 


                                                                                          EXHIBIT 11.1

                                        HARCOURT GENERAL, INC.

<CAPTION>
Computation of the weighted average number of shares outstanding used in determining primary and fully
diluted earnings per share:

(In thousands)                                  Six Months       Three Months  
                                              Ended April 30,   Ended April 30,
                                                1997     1996     1997     1996


PRIMARY

1.    Weighted average number of common
<S>                                           <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
      shares outstanding                      70,874   71,636   70,740   71,445

2.    Assumed conversion of Series A
      Cumulative Convertible Stock             1,255    1,312    1,252    1,307

3.    Assumed exercise of certain stock
      options based on average market
      value                                      103      207       89      197

4.    Weighted average number of shares
      used in primary per share
      computations                            72,232   73,155   72,081   72,949

FULLY DILUTED (A)

1.    Weighted average number of common
      shares outstanding                      70,874   71,636   70,740   71,445

2.    Assumed conversion of Series A
      Cumulative Convertible Stock             1,255    1,312    1,252    1,307

3.    Assumed exercise of all dilutive
      options based on higher of 
      average or closing market value            103      208       89      200

4.    Weighted average number of shares
      used in fully diluted per share
      computations                            72,232   73,156   72,081   72,952





(A)   This calculation  is submitted in  accordance with Securities  Exchange Act of  1934 Release No.
      9083 although  not required  by Footnote  2 to  Paragraph 14 of  APB Opinion  No. 15  because it
      results in dilution of less than 3%.
</TABLE>
                                                                       <PAGE>
Exhibit 10.89

EXTENSION AGREEMENT

Bank
of America, N.A.,
    as Administrative Agent
Attn: Suzanne Paul
231 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

The
undersigned hereby agrees to extend, effective April 3, 2002, its Commitment and the Maturity Date under the Credit Agreement dated as of April 3, 2001 among
SOURCECORP, Incorporated, f/k/a F.Y.I. Incorporated, each of the Lenders party thereto, Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and Banc of America Securities LLC, as sole lead arranger and
sole book agent (as the same may be amended or otherwise modified from time to time, the "Credit Agreement") for 364 days to April 2, 2005
pursuant toSection 2.1(d)of the Credit Agreement. Terms defined in the Credit Agreement are used herein as therein defined.

This
Extension Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the law of the State of Texas. The Extension Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument.

| |  | First Union National Bank
| |  | -------------------------
| |  | Name:                    
| |  |                          
| |  |                          

|Agreed and Accepted:                               
|---------------------------------------------------
|SOURCECORP, INCORPORATED, f/k/a
F.Y.I. INCORPORATED
|By:                                                
|Name:                                              
|Title:                                             
|BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Administrative Agent     
|By:                                                
|Name:                                              
|Title:                                             

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 847 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

<DOC>

        H.R. 847
                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
  the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

                                 An Act

  
 
  To provide for planning and design of a National Air and Space Museum 
extension

               at Washington Dulles International Airport.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PLAN FOR NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM EXTENSION.
    The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution shall have 
authority to plan and design an extension of the National Air and Space 
Museum at Washington Dulles International Airport.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning 
after September 30, 1993, a total of $8,000,000 to carry out this Act.

                                Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                             Vice President of the United States and    
                                                President of the Senate.
```
----

| (1)   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section a 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 the operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May 16, 2011 | /s/  Salvatore J. Zizza                     |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Salvatore J. Zizza                                    |
|                          | Chief Executive Officer (Principal executive officer) |

----
#### CITY OF BATON ROUGE v. James NORMAN.

No. 53868.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: James Norman applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ granted. (See Order)

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Donovan W. Parker, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 2nd day of November, 1973, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the 10th day of December, 1973, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

SUMMERS, J.,

is of the opinion the trial judge should be ordered to correct the sentence in accordance with the ordinance or show cause to the contrary within a reasonable time. Otherwise, the writ should be denied.
Exhibit 10.86

EXTENSION AGREEMENT

Bank
of America, N.A.,
    as Administrative Agent
Attn: Suzanne Paul
231 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

The
undersigned hereby agrees to extend, effective April 3, 2002, its Commitment and the Maturity Date under the Credit Agreement dated as of April 3, 2001 among
SOURCECORP, Incorporated, f/k/a F.Y.I. Incorporated, each of the Lenders party thereto, Bank of America, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and Banc of America Securities LLC, as sole lead arranger and
sole book agent (as the same may be amended or otherwise modified from time to time, the "Credit Agreement") for 364 days to April 2, 2005
pursuant toSection 2.1(d)of the Credit Agreement. Terms defined in the Credit Agreement are used herein as therein defined.

This
Extension Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the law of the State of Texas. The Extension Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument.

| |  | BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | Name:                
| |  | By:                  
| |  | Title:               

|Agreed and Accepted:                               
|---------------------------------------------------
|SOURCECORP, INCORPORATED, f/k/a
F.Y.I. INCORPORATED
|By:                                                
|Name:                                              
|Title:                                             
|BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., as Administrative Agent     
|By:                                                
|Name:                                              
|Title:                                             

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>   1



                            AMERISTEEL CORPORATION

Exhibit 11 - Statement re: computation of per share earnings



       Calculation of Primary and Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share (EPS) *


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                           JUNE 30,       JUNE 30,
                                             1997          1996
                                         (UNAUDITED)   (UNAUDITED)
                                         -----------   -----------

<S>                                      <C>           <C>        
NET INCOME ($000S)                       $     8,423   $     1,952
                                         -----------   -----------



Weighted average shares outstanding       10,077,973    10,094,497




Dilutive effect of stock option plan          19,610             -




                                         -----------   -----------
Shares used in calculating Primary EPS    10,097,583    10,094,497
                                         -----------   -----------


Primary EPS                              $      0.83   $      0.19
                                         ===========   ===========
</TABLE>


* Fully diluted earnings per share are identical to primary earnings per
share.



                                      11
Using Sampling in Performance Audits

(8 hours)

Course Overview

A sound audit approach and impactful report depend on an audit team asking the right 

questions, gathering the most appropriate data, and analyzing that data in the most 

appropriate way. This highly interactive course discusses the role of generalizable and

nongeneralizable sampling as a key method for audit teams to consider to achieve audit 

objectives. Through lecture and class exercises, the class will cover issues such as the 

differences between the different sampling methods, when they might be best used, how to 

implement them when appropriate, and how to report results. This course is offered over 2 

half days.

CPEs: 8 

Who Should Attend 

This course is designed to help federal, state or local government auditors understand and 

apply the principles of generalizable and non-generalizable sampling. Both new as well as 

seasoned auditors in team leader or team member roles will gain knowledge and new 

perspectives about choosing sample types, documenting sample results, and reporting these 

results.

Course Objectives

Participants will be able to understand

• Differences between non-generalizable and generalizable samples

• Factors that influence the choice between using non-generalizable vs. generalizable

samples 

• Different types of non-generalizable and generalizable samples and how to choose 

them

• Factors that influence sample size

• Documenting and reporting the results of samples

• Sampling and nonsampling errors and how to report them

Course Topics

Samples and Their Use

• What are samples

• Characteristics of samples

• Non-generalizable vs. generalizable samples
• Probability vs. non-probability samples

Non-generalizable Sampling Methods

• Reasons to use and limitations

• Common units sampled

• Desired goals and results

• Techniques for drawing samples

• Reporting results

Generalizable Sampling Methods

• Why and when to use generalizable sampling methods

• Common sampling designs, pros and cons

• Sample size, precision and confidence

• Weighting sample data

• Reporting results

Nonsampling Errors

• Definition

• Mitigation

• Reporting
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8148 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8148

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
 Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts for statistical analyses and 
                            data evaluation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 1, 2020

  Mr. Lamb (for himself and Mr. Banks) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
 Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts for statistical analyses and 
                            data evaluation.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``VA Data Analytics and Technology 
Assistance Act'' or the ``VA DATA Act''.

SEC. 2. STATISTICAL ANALYSES AND DATA EVALUATION BY DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 119. Contracting for statistical analyses and data evaluation
    ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into a contract or other 
agreement with an academic institution or other qualified entity, as 
determined by the Secretary, to carry out statistical analyses and data 
evaluation as required of the Secretary by law.
    ``(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
construed to limit the authority of the Secretary to enter into 
contracts or other agreements for statistical analyses and data 
evaluation under any other provision of law.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 1 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following 
new item:

``119. Contracting for statistical analyses and data evaluation.''.
                                 <all>
```