alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****Certifications**I, Thomas J. Koenig, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Day International Group, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin 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 andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 14, 2005 By:  /s/ Thomas J. Koenig    Thomas J. Koenig    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and PrincipalAccounting Officer)
No. 00-1094.

#### Palmer et ux. *v.*Duff et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

November 2 , 2015

Mr. Michael Stanski 10961 Burnt Mill Road Apt. 433 Jacksonville, FL 32256

Dear Mr. Stanski :

This is in response to your letter dated September 9

, 2015

, posted to the public docket (No

. FAA

- 2015

- 3808 ) petitioning the Federal A viation Administration (FAA) to initiate rulemaking to amend §§ 61.73 and 61.129 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

. In your petition, you request §§ 61.73 and 61.129 be amended to exclude military pilots or former military pilots holding a Commercial Pilots License for Helicopters and 500 hours of total flight time from the 50 hour pilot in command requirement for a Commercial Pilots License in single engine airplanes.

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73 , the FAA must use the following cri teria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 2) The priority of other issues the FAA must deal with; and 3) The resources we have available to address these issues

.

Each year, t he FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers the most value to the aviation system

.

After reviewing your request b ased on the current priorities for the FAA and the guidelines found in § 11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria to pursue rulemaking at this time. However, your comments and arguments for the proposed rule change in your petition will be placed in a database, which we will examine when we consider future rulemaking.2

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find

out and track it through one of the two following websites :

 For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) website ( http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report

- on

signifi cant

- rulemakings )

.

 For non

- significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semi

annual regulatory agenda , through the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified Agenda website ( http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain ).

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73.

Sincerely,

/s/

J ohn Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service3

AAS

- 14

- 108

- P

ARM

- 1/200/21 0

Doc #:

ARM

- 200/BR/9/5/14

ERICK N. GRACIA

- GALIANO

PALACIOS DEL MONTE

1645 DENALI ST. TOA ALTA, PR 00953

- 5232
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 20 ,

2017.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 17 -00246- CV

GEOFFREY S. LANCASTER, Appellant

V. DANIEL VERDIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A VERDE DESIGN + BUILD, Appellee
On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014-55497

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appeal from a judgment signed February 28, 2017. On July 6, 2017, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby.
# C_2021391EN.01001901.xml

| 27.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/19

---

Order of the General Court of 27 July 2021 — Alliance française de Bruxelles-Europe and Others v Commission

(Case T-285/21 R)

(Application for interim relief - Public supply contracts - Provision of language training services - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2021/C 391/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alliance française de Bruxelles-Europe (Brussels, Belgium) and the 7 others applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Araujo Arce and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of 19 April 2021 to award Lot No 4 (French language training) of the contract relating to framework contracts for language training for the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union (HR/2020/OP/0014) in first place to the consortium CLL Centre de Langues — Allingua and in second place to the consortium Alliance Europe Multilingue constituted by the applicants and, second, the grant of any other interim measure that the Court considers appropriate.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 6, 2018.

                    A.                     *Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas*                     (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:                

                    1.                     *Richard Franke, Bayview, Texas, and Dennis Franke, Brownsville, Texas, individually, to acquire voting shares of Laguna Madre Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire shares of First National Bank of South Padre Island, Texas. In addition, The McDaniel Nevada Irrevocable Trust, Fort Worth, Texas, Barbara McDaniel, Fort Worth, Texas, Trustee for The McDaniel Nevada Irrevocable Trust, the Estate of Melvin H. Chapman, South Padre Island, Texas, Stewart Chapman, Wichita Falls, Texas, Executor for the Estate of Melvin H. Chapman, Trevor Franke, Frisco, Texas, Denise Franke Yeary, Dallas, Texas, Richard Franke, Jr., John P. Franke, and Kevin C. Franke, all of Bayview, Texas;*                     to retain shares and to join a group acting in concert to retain shares of Laguna Madre Bancshares, Inc.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 16, 2018.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-15472 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 741 

Disapproving of the President’s expression of intent to expand amnesty to 

undocumented immigrants through Executive order after the 2014 congressional midterm elections. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Mr. OLSON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Disapproving of the President’s expression of intent to expand amnesty to undocumented immigrants through Executive order after the 2014 congressional midterm elections. 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives dis2 approves of the President’s expression of intent to expand 

3 amnesty to undocumented immigrants through Executive 

4 order after the 2014 congressional midterm elections. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LAURA BRODBECK

, *

* No. 1 7

- 344 V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: October 19, 2020

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * brachial neuritis.

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Howard S. Gold

, Gold Law Firm, LLC, Wellesley Hills, MA , for Petitioner;

Dhairya D. Jani , United S tates Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION 1

On October 16, 2020

, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the

petition for compensation filed by Laura Brodbeck on March 14, 2017

. Petitioner

alleged that influenza vaccine s he received on October 14, 2014 , which is

contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Tab le”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), caused

her to suffer from brachial neuritis. P etitioner further alleges that s he suffered the

residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Petitioner represents that

there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her

behalf as a result of her condition.

Respondent denies that the influenza vaccine caused petitioner to suffer

from brachial neuritis or any other injury.

1 T he E

- Government Act

, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012 ) ( Federal Management and

Promotion of Electronic Government Services) , requires that the Court post this decision on its

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion propo sing

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 12(d)(4).

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.2

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attache d hereto. The

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $ 30

, 235 .00 in the form of a check payable to

petitioner

. T his amount represents compensation for all damages that

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa

- 15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B,

the clerk is directed to enter judgment according to this decision and the attached

stipulation. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED

.

s /Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal

Claims judge.
#### John N. FERBER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-709.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 13, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1978.

*1257Dennis J. Plews of Law Offices of Robert H. Schultz, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged with six counts of larceny by a public servant in violation of Section 812.021, Florida Statutes (1975). A judgment of acquittal was entered on one count and the jury returned not guilty verdicts on three others. The jury did not initially return a verdict of any kind with respect to Counts II and IV. Consequently, the court made the following statement to the jury:

> “Ladies and Gentlemen you have been given an extremely difficult legal task, and you have done beautifully with it; however, with Count Two, which is the Sony color TV, we have a guilty plea on two charges. You must pick one of these charges. It is either larceny by a public servant or attempted larceny, and with Count Four, you have guilty of larceny by a public servant and guilty of petty larceny. You have to pick one of those. So, I am going to have you retire to the Jury room to pick out one of these two verdicts for Count Two, and one of these verdicts for Count Four.”

The jury then found the appellant guilty as charged on Count II and guilty of the lesser included offense of petit larceny on Count IV.

The appellant argues that the quoted statement was tantamount to an instruction directing the jury to return verdicts of guilt on the remaining two counts. Recognizing that no objection was made, he argues that the error was of such magnitude as to constitute fundamental error. We are compelled to agree.

In the courtroom setting the words of the trial judge are properly given great weight by the jurors. It is particularly important for the judge not to say anything which might be interpreted as being an indication of the court’s opinion of the case. *Mathis v. State,*45 Fla. 46, 34 So. 287 (1903).

Assuming the foregoing comment is accurately transcribed, and no one has suggested to the contrary, we are confident that the court did not mean to say what was actually said. No doubt the court intended to advise the jury to continue its deliberations so as to try to reach a verdict on the two counts on which no verdicts had yet been rendered. However, the fact remains that the jurors could have reasonably believed that they were being instructed to return verdicts of guilt on Counts II and IV. Therefore, we cannot say that this appellant has been afforded due process, and in the interest of justice we find it necessary to set aside the judgment and remand for a new trial.

We also have serious doubts about the state’s position that it need not allege and prove the value of the public property stolen in order to seek a felony conviction for larceny by a public servant, but in view of our disposition of this appeal, we need not reach the question at this time.

REVERSED.

SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
# C_2021252EN.01000702.xml

| 28.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/7

---

Appeal brought on 15 February 2021 by easyCosmetic Swiss GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) delivered on 9 December 2020 in Case T-858/19, easyCosmetic Swiss GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-93/21 P)

(2021/C 252/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: easyCosmetic Swiss GmbH (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt, and S. E. Sullivan, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, U.W.I. Unternehmensberatungs- und Wirtschaftsinformations GmbH

By order of 20 May 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
#### DELTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. v. T. V. SELECTION SYSTEM, INC.

No. 46084.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 22, 1971.

Wilbourn, Williams & Glover, R. E. Wilbourn, Meridian, for appellant.

Snow, Covington, Temple & Watts, Meridian, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lauderdale County; William Neville, Chancellor.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.5


 


Archimedes Tech SPAC Partners Co.


2093 Philadelphia Pike #1968


Claymont, DE 19703


 


March 10, 2021


 


SPAC Partners LLC


2093 Philadelphia Pike #1968


Claymont, DE 19703


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm
our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement
(the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”)
of Archimedes Tech SPAC Partners Co.’s (the “Company”) securities and continuing until the earlier
of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case
as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”),
SPAC Partners LLC shall make available to the Company certain office space, utilities and secretarial support as may be required
by the Company from time to time, situated at 2093 Philadelphia Pike #1968, Claymont, DE 19703 (or any successor location). In
exchange therefore, the Company shall pay SPAC Partners LLC the sum of $10,000 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly
thereafter until the Termination Date. SPAC Partners LLC hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim
of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) to be
established upon the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”) and hereby waives any Claim it may have in
the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company and will not seek recourse
against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 






     


     


    

 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	Archimedes Tech SPAC Partners Co.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Stephen N. Cannon
	 	 	Name:	Stephen N. Cannon
	 	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer



 

	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
	 
	SPAC Partners LLC
	 	 	
	By:	/s/Stephen N. Cannon	 
	 	Name: 	Stephen N. Cannon	 
	 	Title: 	Authorized Person	 


 


 


[Signature Page to Administrative Services
Agreement]
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, and in connection with the quarterly report on
Form 10-QSB of Volunteer  Bancorp,  Inc. (the  "Company")  for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,  Greg Oliver, Vice President and Cashier
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, hereby certify 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.

     This Certification is signed on August 14, 2003.

                                    /s/  Greg Oliver
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Greg Oliver
                                    Vice President and Cashier