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



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATIONS I, Edward W. Wilhelm, certify that:  6)
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Borders Group,
Inc.;7)
    
    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;8)
    
    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;9)
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:  a.
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b.
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  10)
    
    The registrants other certifying officers 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):  a.
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 25, 2004 /s/ EDWARD W. WILHELM

Edward W. Wilhelm
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Borders Group, Inc. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 has been
provided to Borders Group, Inc. and will be retained by Borders Group, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Belding *v.*State.

*Appeal from Hot Spring Circuit Court.*

Hon. Liberty Bartlett, Circuit Judge.

Garland & Nash, for appellant.

Attorney General, for appellee.

Gregg, J.

This ease involves the same questions decided between the same parties. No. 69.

The judgment is reversed, and'the case remanded, to be proceeded in according to law.
#### Mike WENDT v. CITY OF BOSSIER CITY.

No. 62981.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Mike Wendt applying for use of plenary powers and exercise of authority and supervisory jurisdiction.

Writ denied: On the showing made, the writ and stay order is denied.
#### Elmer Eugene HUGHES v. HEIRS of Genia CAIN, Deceased et al.

No. 53030.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1973.

In re: The Heirs of Genia Cain applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Helena. 268 So.2d 149.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in the judgment complained of.
#### Mark LINSKY, by his father and next friend, Marshall Linsky, and Marshall Linsky, individually, Appellants, v. Fred William KAIN et al., Appellees.

No. 71-297.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Odessa Mae SAMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-87.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 15, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60250 Summary Calendar

EMILY SCIPPER

Plaintiff - Appellant

v. BUNGE CORP, et al.

Defendants
BUNGE CORP; DAVID TOLLIVER

Defendants - Appellees

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford

USDC No. 2:00-CV-43-P-B

-------------------- August 23, 2002 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-appellant Emily Scipper appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellants Bunge Corporation (Bunge) and David Tolliver. Scipper’s first argues that the district court erred in refusing to remand this case to state court. Scipper’s argument utterly fails to deal with the inescapable fact that the last sentence of her complaint asks for “judgment of, from and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount ofNo. 02-60250 -2- $150,000.” As the district court pointed out, the amount requested from each defendant is greater than $75,000. The minimum jurisdictional amount requirement is thus satisfied. Scipper’s second argument is that the district court erred in finding that Tolliver was fraudulently joined. The test is, as Scipper recognizes, whether there is no possibility that the plaintiff will be able to establish a cause of action against the instate defendant. Tolliver’s affidavit, which Scipper does not address and did not counter, makes it perfectly clear that the test has been satisfied and that Tolliver was fraudulently joined. Finally, Scipper argues that summary judgment was not proper. Again, Tolliver’s affidavit, not countered by Scipper, makes it clear that Bunge had no responsibility for the placement of the cars that allegedly obstructed her view. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.No. 02-60250 -3-
Exhibit 99
                                                                      ----------


                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A2 of Western Power &
Equipment Corp. (the "Company") for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, C. Dean McLain, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, based on my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.




C. Dean McLain
Chief Executive Officer
November 27, 2002



<PAGE>






                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A2 of Western Power &
Equipment Corp. (the "Company") for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Mark J. Wright, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, based on my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.




Mark J. Wright
Chief Financial Officer
November 27, 2002
# C_2020209EN.01003001.xml

| 22.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/30

---

Action brought on 20 April 2020 — Square v EUIPO ($ Cash App)

(Case T-210/20)

(2020/C 209/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Square, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, K. Lüder, and T. Dolde, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark $ Cash App — International registration designating the European Union No 1 410 819

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2020 in Case R 811/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Operations Department and the First Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Operations Department and the First Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.

---
#### Irvin FREEMAN, Sr. v. Julia Belle FREEMAN.

Civ. 1242.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 12, 1977.

*1049Murray W. Beasley, Tuscumbia, for appellant.

Roger H. Bedford, Bedford & Bedford, Russellville, for appellee.

HOLMES, Judge.

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Colbert County. The trial court found the appellant-husband owed the wife a sum of money and ordered certain property of the husband’s sold. The money owed to the wife by the .husband arose from a previous decree of divorce. The husband has appealed and we affirm.

The husband’s argument for reversal of the trial court’s action is as follows:

> “The Appellant strongly urges that the Circuit Court of Colbert County, Alabama, did on the 2nd day of July, 1975, judicially decide and determine the exact issues presented by the petitioner’s petition and thereby the petition of the Appellee filed the 14th day of February, 1977, is res judicata. *Gray vs. Gray,*[91 Fla. 103] 107 So. 261, *Irvin [Irwin] vs. Alabama Fuel and Iron Company,*[215 Ala. 328] 110 So. 566.”

The husband did file an answer to the wife’s petition and one aspect of this answer is what was formerly referred to as a plea of res judicata. However, this court has diligently searched the record and we find no action or ruling by the trial court regarding the answer of res judicata. Additionally, we cannot from the record before us determine whether this question was in fact even considered by the trial court.

Suffice it to say that matters not ruled upon by the trial court cannot be considered on appeal. *Smith v. Winkles,*49 Ala.App. 454, 273 So.2d 215 (1973); *Dorroh v. Jefferson County,*264 Ala. 335, 87 So.2d 619 (1956); 2 Ala.Dig. *Appeal & Error*«8=»242(1).

The case is due to be and is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

WRIGHT, P. J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.
#### Irby STEEL v. W. R. FAIRCHILD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LTD., et al.

No. 53160.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1973.

In re: W. R. Fairchild Construction Company, Ltd., et al. applying for certi-orari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Tammany.

Application denied. The result is correct.
No. 00-911.

#### Cox *v.*Moore, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 3.2

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                       SECURED DIGITAL APPLICATIONS, INC.

     Pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  Section  242  of  the  Delaware  General
Corporations Code, Secured Digital  Applications,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation
(the "Corporation"),  adopts the following articles of amendment to its articles
of incorporation:

     1. The Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation is
hereby amended by replacing paragraph "(a)" in Article IV:

          (a)  Authorized  Capital  Stock.  The total  number of shares of stock
which the  Corporation  shall have authority to issue is  351,000,000  shares of
capital stock,  consisting of (i) 350,000,000  shares of common stock, par value
$0.00001 per share (the "Common  Stock") and (ii) 1,000,000  shares of preferred
stock, par value $0.10 per share (the "Preferred Stock").

     2. This  Articles of Amendment to the  Articles of  Incorporation  has been
duly adopted by the  unanimous  written  consent of the  Corporation's  Board of
Directors and a majority of the  Corporation's  stockholders  in accordance with
the provisions of the Delaware  General  Corporations Law and the By-Laws of the
Corporation.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  this Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated
Articles of  Incorporation  to be signed by its Secretary of the Board this 20th
day of July, 2004.

                                 SECURED DIGITAL APPLICATIONS, INC.


                                 By:/s/ Valerie Hoi-Fah Looi
                                    --------------------------------
                                    Valerie Hoi-Fah Looi, Secretary
#### SANELCO, INC. and Maryland Casualty Company, Petitioners, v. Roger WELLS and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38569.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 2, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1969.

E. O. Palermo and Richard G. Davis, of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, for petitioners.

Rodney Durrance, of Stanley, Durrance, Woods & Wines, Auburndale, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date April 4, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied.

The Petition for Attorney’s Fees is hereby granted in the amount of $250.00.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### Lessee of JOB DONOVAN et al. *vs.*JAMES R. DONOVAN, tenant.

A devise of “ all my real, and remainder of my estate,” without any words of limitation, will carry the fee; if there be nothing in the will to control such a construction.

The word “ estate ” refers to the quantity of interest, as well as the body of the land.

Ejectment. Case stated.

Ebenezer Warren, the elder, made his last will and testament in writing, as follows:—

*“*Item.—I give unto- my daughter Betsey Dod, one shilling sterling, and no more of my estate. Item. I give and bequeath unto my daughter Bathsheba Donovan, four dollars, and no more of my estate. Item. I give unto my daughter Sarah Griffith, one shilling, and no more of my estate. I give and bequeath unto my son Benjamin Warren, one dollar and ten cents, and no more of my estate. Item. *I give unto my son Ebenezer Warren, all my role, and remainder of my estáte.*Item. I give unto my daughter Selah Walls, one dollar and ten cents, and no more of my estate. I leave my wife Levina Warren, and Job Donovan, my whole executors of all my estate.’,’

*178The question was whether Ebenezer Warren, the younger, took an estate in fee, or only a life estate, under the devise to him. by the said will. Jf but a life estate, judgment to be entered for plaintiff; if otherwise, for the defendant.

*Wootten*and *Layton,*for plaintiff.

*Houston, for*defendant.

*Wootten*and *Layton,*for plaintiff,

cited, 8 *Johns. Rep.*141, *Jackson*vs. *Harris.*

*Houston,*contra,

cited, 22 *Law Lib.*212-20. *(Powel on Devises*212.)

*The*Court.

—The word “ estate,” as used here, applies to the title as well as the corpus of the land. Ebenezer Warren takes an estate in fee. Judgment for defendant.
# C_2020279EN.01005502.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/55

---

Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Portigon v SRB

(Case T-424/20)

(2020/C 279/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Portigon AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Bliesener, V. Jungkind und F. Geber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ESF/2020/24), in so far as the decision concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 15 April 2020 on the calculation of contributions to the Single Resolution Fund collected in advance for 2020 (SRB/ESF/2020/24), in so far as the decision concerns the applicant;

| — | stay the proceedings under Article 69(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until a final decision is issued in Cases T-420/17, T-413/18, T-481/19 and T-339/20 or until those cases are otherwise brought to a conclusion; |
| --- | --- |

—

stay the proceedings under Article 69(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until a final decision is issued in Cases T-420/17, T-413/18, T-481/19 and T-339/20 or until those cases are otherwise brought to a conclusion;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to the first, second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth plea in law put forward in Case T-339/20, Portigon v SRB.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S  CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000
AND THE  RELATED  CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF INCOME AND CASH
FLOWS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         141,018
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  192,564
<ALLOWANCES>                                    57,120
<INVENTORY>                                     86,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               432,226
<PP&E>                                       5,038,062
<DEPRECIATION>                                 981,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,719,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          306,506
<BONDS>                                      2,068,440
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           940
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,082,685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,719,682
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               663,475
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  394,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,377
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 86,965
<INCOME-TAX>                                    31,183
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             55,782
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    55,782
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28





</TABLE>