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

                                 CERTIFICATION


I, Charles W. Cramb, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Gillette Company;

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;

3. 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;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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) [intentionally omitted]

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) 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

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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; and

(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:  July 29, 2004

                                           /s/ Charles W. Cramb
                                           ____________________________________
                                           Charles W. Cramb
                                           Senior Vice President and Chief
                                           Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

DARRYL M. KOCH AND KIM T. NOLL,

Petitioners

v.

ANDREW T. COSCIA AND KATHLEEN M. COSCIA,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 59 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of July, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### In re ESTATE of Louis RABINOWITZ, Deceased.

No. 72-1115.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 15, 1973.

Appeal from County Judge’s Court, Broward County; Leroy H. Moe, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 10770.

#### The Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. *v.*Loftus.

Decided February 16, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

*Messrs. Arrel, Wilson & Harrington,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Anderson, McNab & Anderson,*for defendant in error.

Judgment of circuit court reversed and judgment of court of common pleas affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Spear, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 8, 2011

0228 

# Order

March 8, 2011

142049

MICHAEL W. WARREN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 142049 COA: 298281 WCAC: 09-000207 COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 29, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

           (Not filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Thomas C. Brown, the
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of TMBR/Sharp
Drilling, Inc. ("TMBR"), hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
of TMBR for the year ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the periodic
reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
the information contained in that Form 10-K/A Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TMBR.

Dated: December 30, 2003

                                    /s/ Thomas C. Brown
                                   ----------------------------------------
                                   Thomas C. Brown, Chairman
                                   of the Board of Directors and Chief
                                   Executive Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to TMBR/Sharp Drilling, Inc. and will be retained by TMBR/Sharp
Drilling, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# Official Journal C 290A/20 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 290A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6420 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 290A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6420 July 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2021/C 290 A/01 | Call for expressions of interest for external experts to be appointed as a member or alternates of the Administrative Board of Review of the European Central Bank (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Central Bank

2021/C 290 A/01

Call for expressions of interest for external experts to be appointed as a member or alternates of the Administrative Board of Review of the European Central Bank (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### HENRY COLESCOTT, d. b. *vs.*WILLIAM M. BONWILL.

Judgment by *default*cannot be signed until the usual time of closing business for the day, unless a certain hour is fixed for the hearing, with due notice thereof to the defendant-

Certiorari to Justice Simpson.

The record showed that the case was, at the request of thp defendant, adjourned to a particular day, at two o’clock, P. M., when the plaintiff appeared; and defendant not appearing, the case was postponed to three o’clock, P. M., when the justice gave judgment by default: after which the defendant appeared and claimed a trial, which was refused on the ground that the defendant had not used due diligence. This was the exception.

*Bates,*for plaintiff.

*Smithers,*for defendant.

*Smithers,*for exceptant,

argued that the justice had no authority to enter judgment against the defendant, by default, for non-appear-once on the day to which the case stood adjourned, if at any hour of that day the party presented himself for a hearing.

*The Court*

affirmed the judgment. If *the*adjournment had been general to a particular day, the justice should not enter judgment by default, until the usual time of closing business for the day; but where the adjournment is to a certain hour of the day, and so made in the presence of the defendant, or with notice to him, the justice is not bound to wait beyond that hour; otherwise, all the business before him might, by the negligence of the defendants, be postponed to the last hour; when it would be impossible to hear and determine it.

Judgment affirmed.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 88

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses

of investigations and studies by the Committee on Agriculture in the

first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 17, 1993

Mr. DE LA GARZA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House

for expenses of investigations and studies by the Committee on Agriculture in the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

1 Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and

2 studies by the Committee on Agriculture (hereinafter in

3 this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’), including

4 expenses for—

5 (1) procurement of consultant services under

6 section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act

7 of 1946; and
2

HRES 88 IH

1 (2) provision of assistance for members of pro2 fessional staff in obtaining specialized training under

3 section 202(j) of such Act;

4 there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House

5 not more than $2,341,481.00.

6 (b) Not more than $10,000.00 of the amount speci7 fied in subsection (a) may be used for consultant services

8 referred to in paragraph (1) of such subsection and not

9 more than $1,000.00 of such amount may be used for spe10 cialized training referred to in paragraph (2) of such sub11 section.

12 SEC. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made

13 on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved by the Commit15 tee on House Administration.

16 SEC. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolu17 tion for investigations and studies carried out during the

18 period beginning at noon on January 3, 1993, and ending

19 immediately before noon on January 3, 1994.

20 SEC. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution

21 shall be expended in accordance with regulations pre22 scribed by the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
#### Troy Harold BROWNING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 69-605, 69-613, 69-614.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 24, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 3, 1970.

Robert. R. Crittenden, Asst. Public Defender, Winter Haven, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Edward F. Boardman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged for violating Section 811.16, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., in that he unlawfully and feloniously received or aided in the concealment of a 1966 2-door hardtop Oldsmobile and a tractor-trailer. *454He was tried by jury and represented by attorney. The jury found him guilty as charged and this appeal ensued.

We have studied the briefs, the record and all papers filed in this matter, and the appellant having failed to show reversible error, the judgment is therefore affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
# C_2023271EN.01002002.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/20

---

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the General Court of 16 March 2023 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Cottbus — Germany) — Stadt Frankfurt (Oder), FWA Frankfurter Wasser- und Abwassergesellschaft mbH v Landesamt für Bergbau, Geologie und Rohstoffe

(Case T-723/21, (1) Stadt Frankfurt (Oder) and FWA)

(2023/C 271/28)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---
#### Willie RAMSEY v. Albert COTTON, Jr.

No. 11459.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

July 11, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 24, 1977.

*961Joseph A. Gladney, Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiff appellant Willie Ramsey.

Larry D. Book, Baton Rouge, Mac R. Trelles, Jr., Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant appellee Albert Cotton.

Before SARTAIN, COVINGTON and LOTTINGER, JJ.

LOTTINGER, Judge.

This is an automobile accident suit. Plaintiff sued to recover for personal injuries as well as property damages. From a judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing plaintiff’s suit, plaintiff has appealed.

This matter was consolidated for purposes of trial with another suit entitled, *“Willie J. Talbert v. Willie Ramsey, et al”*number 11458 on the Docket of this Court, 349 So.2d 958. For the reasons given in the opinion this date rendered in suit number 11458, the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed, all costs of this appeal to be paid by plaintiff-appellant.

AFFIRMED.
diod-ex103_6.htm



Exhibit 10.3

DIODES INCORPORATED
4949 Hedgcoxe Road Suite 200
Plano, Texas 75024

January 22, 2021

To:The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

Subject:Banking Facilities to Diodes Hong Kong Limited

Dear Sirs

We confirm that we are aware that you have offered to grant banking facilities to Diodes Hong Kong Limited (the “Borrower”) for up to US$100,000,000 and approve the terms and conditions of such banking facilities.

In connection with the foregoing, we also confirm that:

1.  The Borrower is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Diodes Incorporated.  We will promptly advise you in the event of any decision being taken to dispose of the whole or any part of our shareholding in the Borrower.

2.  The Borrower, as part of the Diodes Incorporated corporate family, is operated and maintained in such a way to be in a financial position to perform all its contractual obligations, including repayment of its obligations from time to time to you.

3.  We do not foresee taking any corporate action which will result in the Borrower being unable to carry on its business or otherwise be unable to meet all its obligations from time to time to you, and hereby undertake to advise you forthwith of any circumstances of which we become aware which may affect the continuing operation of the Borrower.

4.  We will furnish you with our consolidated annual audited financial statements and accounts and will procure that the Borrower will furnish you with annual audited financial statements and accounts together with such additional financial information as may be reasonably required.

This letter is to be interpreted according to Hong Kong law.

Very truly yours,

DIODES INCORPORATED

By:___/s/ Brett Whitmire_____________
Name:_____Brett Whitmire_____________
Title:_____CFO______________________


			
	
 
	
-1-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Global Marine Inc. and subsidiaries as
of 9-30-97 and the related condensed consolidated statement of operations for
the nine months ended 9-30-97, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         190,600
<SECURITIES>                                       200
<RECEIVABLES>                                  150,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,100
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               364,600
<PP&E>                                       1,195,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                 289,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,429,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,400
<BONDS>                                        523,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,200
<OTHER-SE>                                     711,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,429,200
<SALES>                                          5,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               747,800
<CGS>                                            3,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  520,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                203,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (52,400)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            256,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   256,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45
        

</TABLE>
#### Sidney KESSLER, Appellant, v. Nathan S. GUMENICK, Harry Grandis and Jerome Gumenick, a partnership, d/b/a Southgate Towers Hotel and Apartments, and Home Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 77-285.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 23, 1978.

*1168Herman Grayson, Miami Beach and Frank M. Brezina, Miami, for appellant.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg, Hawkesworth, Schmick, Ponzoli & Wassenberg, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and CRAWFORD, GRADY L. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant/plaintiff appeals from an “order granting motion for summary judgment” in favor of appellees/defendants in a negligence action that can be categorized as a “slip and fall.”

Appellant contends that there were genuine issues of material fact left unresolved by the trial judgment thus precluding the entrance of a summary judgment. We disagree with appellant’s contention; however, before discussing the merits, we note that from a procedural standpoint, the order appealed is but an order granting a motion and is not appealable as such. Accordingly, as urged by counsel for appellees, this appeal should be, and is hereby dismissed. *Shupack v. Allstate Insurance*Company, 356 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); see also *Florida Roofing & Sheet Metal Contractors Self-Insurers Fund*v. *Citizens National Bank of Orlando,*223 So.2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); *Harris v. Mosteller,*253 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); and *Washington Security Co. v. Tracy’s Plumbing & Pumps, Inc.,*166 So.2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).

For the sake of argument, a properly entered final summary judgment would have nevertheless been affirmed. While appellant did present an issue of fact as to whether or not there existed water on the floor directly in front of the apartment house elevator (apparently tracked into the building via bathers returning from the apartment’s swimming pool) thereby causing a hazardous condition, the record is completely devoid of any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, addressed to the issue of whether or not appellees had either actual or constructive knowledge of the danger prior to the time of appellant’s slip and fall and thus, could have with reasonable diligence, remedied the situation. In that no proof was offered with respect to the knowledge of appellees, it is our opinion that, *sub judice,*appellant failed to present a *prima facie*case of negligence. *Padilla v. Tulso Enterprises, Inc.,*307 So.2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); *Haley v. Harvey Building Inc.,*168 So.2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Accordingly, a summary final judgment would have been proper.

For the reason stated at the' outset, this appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,125,416
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,965,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    214,008
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,968,305
<PP&E>                                      22,671,438
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,051,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,241,718
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          590,055
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    339,407
<COMMON>                                     2,687,211
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,558,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,241,718
<SALES>                                     10,467,731
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,709,105
<CGS>                                        9,759,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,939,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               354,156
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,230,220)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,230,220)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,230,220)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.1

                            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 of W.P. Stewart & Co., Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
his knowledge:

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

Date: March 16, 2005


/s/ William P. Stewart, Jr.
------------------------------------
William P. Stewart, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Carole Gamwell JONES, a/k/a Carole K. Gamwell, Appellant, v. John E. TRACEY and Patsy B. Tracey, his wife, Appellee.

No. 73-443.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 13, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Eugene Fischer, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.