alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|EXHIBIT 31.2                   
|-------------------------------
|                               
|CERTIFICATION                  
|                               
|I, Danny W. Huff, certify that:
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               
|                               



---

|                        |                                                                                                                                          | b) 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: November 10, 2003
|                        |                                                                                                                                          |                                                                                                                                                                              
|                        | /s/ DANNY W. HUFF                                     
Danny W. Huff
Executive Vice President -- Finance
    and Chief Financial Officer
#### Mark A. FLETCHER and Mattie M. Fletcher, his wife, Appellants, v. RESIDENCE BUILDERS, INC., a corporation; Harold O. Brown and Mary B. Brown, his wife; Ernst A. Upmeyer and Kathryn M. Upmeyer, his wife; and Edith P. Miles, Appellees.

No. 70-444.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 8, 1970.

Appeal quashed.
JACKET: 604-466

TITLE: FY’19 SY’19 2HSS 0119 MAILING

DLA DOCUMENT SERVICES

BID OPENING: November 7, 2018, 2:00 P.M.

Contractor Name Price Terms

Monarch Litho, Inc $267,762.00 2%-20

Cenveo $278,111.11 2%-20
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,605
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  319,735
<ALLOWANCES>                                    90,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               238,389
<PP&E>                                       1,929,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                  63,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,346,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          538,364
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,305
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,290,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,346,288
<SALES>                                        889,896
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               892,464
<CGS>                                          923,074
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  923,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,591,452
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                40,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,645,397)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,649,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (184,523)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,833,920)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### THE STATE, use of JAMES HART, guardian of N. HOLLAND, et al, minors and heirs-at-law of THOMAS HOLLAND, deceased *vs.*HENRY BELIN and WILLIAM BRECK, Adm’rs. of THOMAS HOLLAND, deceased.

Co-administrators are not liable for the separate acts of each other. They do not stand in the relation of *sureties*to each "other.

Debt on administration bond. Case agreed.

Thomas Holland died intestate, leaving a widow and six children, the plaintiffs, his heirs-at-law. The defendants administered and gave bond with Alfred Du Pont as surety. Henry Belin, one of the administrators, passed a final account of his administration on said estate in April, 1848, showing a balance of $ due from him.

Thomas Holland, in his life time and shortly before his death, became co-administrator with John Holland, jr., on the estate of John Holland, deceased, having given bond and surety, together with said John Holland, jr. The administration was conducted solely by John Holland, jr., who wasted the estate.

The question was, whether Thomas Holland, as co-administrator with John Holland, was liable for the acts of his co-administrator.

*401
      *T. F. Bayard,*for plaintiff.

*F. W. Gilpin,*for defendant.

This action was brought for the protection of the administrators, in paying over to the heirs-at-law of Thomas Holland the distributive balance of his estate.

The plaintiff relied on the case of *The State, for the use of Wolsey Burton*vs. *Mizabeth Burton’s adm’r.,*decided in the Court of Appeals, June term, 1849. [Ante., 182.]

The case was submitted, without argument.

Judgment for plaintiff.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           15137
<SECURITIES>                                     11716
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 19928
<PP&E>                                           40013
<DEPRECIATION>                                     874
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   68214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              801
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        102300
<OTHER-SE>                                     (36136)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     68214
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   333
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (766)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (766)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (766)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Western Sierra Mining Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Denis Atkins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the Company.



Dated: October 2, 2008

/s/ Dennis AtkinsDennis AtkinsChief Financial Officer

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elvis Andrews, Appellant.

[654 NYS2d 741]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.), rendered April 20, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant and summation remarks concerning a significant discrepancy between defendant’s trial testimony and a post-arrest statement attributed to him by the police were proper *(People v Savage,*50 NY2d 673, *cert denied*449 US 1016), notwithstanding defendant’s testimony that he made no such statement *(see, People v Davis,*61 NY2d 202).

The court properly limited cross-examination of police witnesses concerning unrelated incidents *(see, People v Johnson,*228 AD2d 389, *lv denied*88 NY2d 1022; *People v Alston,*215 AD2d 108, *lv denied*86 NY2d 732). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
263 La. 108

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. W. Heyward RESTER v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 52879.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 19, 1972.

In re: W. Heyward Rester applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
IIA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 821

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 3 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

AN ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility

for burial in national cemeteries to persons who have

20 years of service creditable for retired pay as members

of a reserve component of the Armed Forces.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR BURIAL IN NATIONAL CEME4 TERIES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2402 of title 38, United

6 States Code, is amended—
2

•HR 821 RFS

1 (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as para2 graph (7); and

3 (2) by adding after paragraph (5) the following

4 new paragraph:

5 ‘‘(6) Any person who at the time of death was entitled

6 to retired pay under chapter 67 of title 10 or would have

7 been entitled to retired pay under that chapter but for

8 the fact that the person was under 60 years of age.’’.

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section

10 2301(e) of such title is amended by striking out ‘‘section

11 2402(6)’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘section 2402(7)’’.

12 (2) Section 2306(a)(2) of such title is amended by

13 striking out ‘‘(6)’’ and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘(7)’’.

Passed the House of Representatives August 2,

1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

            In connection with the annual report of PCMall, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,Ted Sanders, Chief Financial Officer****of the Company, hereby certify asof the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 ofthe United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

                  (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 ofthe Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.  

 

 

Date: March 28, 2003                          /s/ TED SANDERS                                                            

                                                            TedSanders

**                                                           **Chief Financial Officer

 

** A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to PC Mall, Inc. and will be retainedby PC Mall, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.**
EXHIBIT 10.6A





EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS





The Company has entered into employment agreements with certain executive officers. These agreements are identical except for the date of execution, the name and title of the particular officer involved, and that officers
minimum base salary. In July 1997, the Company entered into employment agreements with Michael Mack, Chief Executive Officer and President, David Qualls, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary, and Gregory Keller, Vice President of Operations. On
November 17, 1998 the Company entered into an employment agreement with Kenneth Keane, Vice President of Human Resources. On July 22, 2002, the Company entered into an employment agreement with Walter Carucci, Vice President of Development and
Construction. On September 3, 2002, the Company entered into an employment agreement with Lloyd Fritzmeier, Executive Vice President of Marketing. Under the respective employment agreements, the minimum base annual salary for Mr. Mack is $250,000,
for Mr. Qualls is $170,000, for Mr. Keller is $150,000, for Mr. Keane is $120,000, for Mr. Carucci is $160,000, and for Mr. Fritzmeier is $280,000.
September 30 , 2010

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: CH 4 D ata from 2010 and 2011 Heavy - Duty Vehicle Certification Tests FROM: Antonio Fernandez, Engineer

Assessment and Standards Division TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2010 - 0162 This memorandum contains the results of 9 tests of various manufacture rs’ heavy - duty certified models in 20 10 and 20 11 . They were all tested over the FTP city and highway fuel economy cycles . Two of the tests represent gasoline fueled vehicles while the remaining seven represent diesel vehi cles . The emission levels reflect the composite result with the city cycle accounting for 55% and the highway accounting for 45% of the result . Eight of the tests resulted in levels at or below half of the proposed cap standard of 0 .05 g/mile . Only o ne of the vehicle s, a diesel, exceeded the proposed cap of 0 .05 g/mile . Since methane is not currently

a regulated emission in heavy - duty , there has been little effort at controlling methane. We believe that with some concentrated effort by the manufacturer at controlling the methane emissions, this diesel vehicle should be able to meet the proposed methane cap.Methane Levels for 2010 and 2011 Gasoline and Diesel Heavy Duty Vehicles Composite of FTP City and HWFE tests (55/45)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Test Pointsgrams/mile
# C_2021019EN.01006001.xml

| 18.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/60

---

Action brought on 30 October 2020 — NV v eu-LISA

(Case T-661/20)

(2021/C 19/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NV (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 3 February 2020 insofar as it imposes a reprimand on the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 3 February 2020 insofar as it imposes a reprimand on the applicant;

| — | if need be, annul the decision of 3 August 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 9 April 2020; |
| --- | --- |

—

if need be, annul the decision of 3 August 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 9 April 2020;

| — | order financial compensation for non-material harm, which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at the sum of EUR 5 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order financial compensation for non-material harm, which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at the sum of EUR 5 000;

| — | order reimbursement of the incurred costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order reimbursement of the incurred costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, a plea of illegality in relation to the decision of the Management Board (2015-014) on administrative inquiries of 28 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, a plea of illegality in relation to the decision of the Management Board (2015-014) on administrative inquiries of 28 January 2015.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of the defence together with violation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the right to be heard and furthermore breach of the duty of confidentiality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of the rights of the defence together with violation of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the right to be heard and furthermore breach of the duty of confidentiality.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 12, 12a, 17 and 19 of the Staff Regulations, together with breach of the principle of good administration and furthermore manifest errors of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 12, 12a, 17 and 19 of the Staff Regulations, together with breach of the principle of good administration and furthermore manifest errors of assessment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations on disciplinary proceedings, together with violation of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations on disciplinary proceedings, together with violation of the duty of care.

---
EXHIBIT NO. 99



Supplemental Segment Information

|In thousands                     | Three Months EndedJanuary 31, | Nine Months Ended January 31,
|-------------------------------- | ----------------------------- | -----------------------------
|                                 | 2002                          | 2001                         
|Orders Received:                 |                               |                              
|Sign Making & Specialty Graphics | $  56,655                     | $  63,838                    
|Apparel & Flexible Materials     | 35,054                        | 47,894                       
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing       | 21,884                        | 21,791                       
|                                 |                               |                              
|                                 | $113,593                      | $133,523                     
|                                 | =======                       | =======                      





|                                 | January 31,2002 | April 30,2001 | 
|-------------------------------- | --------------- | ------------- | 
|Backlog:                         |                 |               | 
|Sign Making & Specialty Graphics | $  1,992        | $  1,420      | 
|Apparel & Flexible Materials     | 26,234          | 35,564        | 
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing       | 5,351           | 3,532         | 
|                                 |                 |               | 
|                                 | $33,577         | $40,516       | 
|                                 | ======          | ======        |
H. Res. 394

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

March 22, 1994.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that:

(a) Congress has a constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of matters relating to the operations of

the Government, including matters related to any governmental investigations which may, from time to time,

be undertaken.

(b) The Speaker, majority and minority leaders

should meet to determine the appropriate timetable, procedures, and forum for appropriate congressional oversight, including hearings on all matters related to

‘‘Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association

(‘MGS&L’), Whitewater Development Corporation and

Capital Management Services Inc. (‘CMS’)’’.

(c) No witness called to testify at these hearings

shall be granted immunity under sections 6002 and

6005 of title 18, United States Code, over the objection

of Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.
2

HRES 394 EH

(d) The hearings should be structured and

sequenced in such a manner that in the judgment of the

leaders they would not interfere with the ongoing investigation of Special Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr.

Attest:

Clerk.