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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Ricardo Bernardes, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of California Steel Industries, Inc. (the “Registrant”); 

 

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 thestatements 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 annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects 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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we 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, includingits 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 conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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 financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s mostrecent fiscal year 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 and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting 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 controlsover financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 28, 2005
#### William COON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1059.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Kurt Marmar, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt and Jose R. Rodriguez, Asst. At-tys. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The single point presented on this appeal urges that the verdict does not support the judgment rendered in that it shows that the defendant was found guilty of robbery by threats to use a weapon rather than a deadly weapon as described in Section 812.-13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). The information properly charged the defendant, pursuant to Section 812.13(2)(a), under which he was sentenced.1 The verdict properly found the defendant “As to Robbery as charged in the Information: GUILTY.” The only difficulty arises because at the *1241charge conference, it was agreed that a notation should be placed at the bottom of the verdict form by which the jury could determine whether or not a weapon was used. No place was provided in the notation for a finding of a deadly weapon. The jury did, however, definitely find that the defendant threatened to use a weapon.2 No motion for new trial was made upon the basis of the claimed impropriety in the form of the verdict. We conclude that no prejudicial error has been shown and that the judgment and sentence must be affirmed on the basis of the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in *Hambrick v. State,*80 Fla. 672, 86 So. 623, 624 (1920), where the court said:

> “The entire record may be looked to in ascertaining the offense for which the accused is sentenced, and an erroneous recital or statement of the offense by the court in pronouncing sentence, or of the clerk in recording in the minutes of the proceedings kept by him the judgment imposed, will not vitiate the judgment when the record fully discloses the offense for which the accused was indicted, tried, and convicted.”

Affirmed.

1

. The material portion of the information reads as follows:

> “ . . . did unlawfully by force, violence, assault or putting in fear, take certain property, to-wit: CASH, GOOD AND LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, said property being the subject of larceny and of the value of less than ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) the property of SAM KRAUS, as owner or custodian, from the person or custody of SAM KRAUS, and in the course of committing said Robbery, carried a deadly weapon, to-wit: A KNIFE, in violation of 812.13 Florida Statutes.”

2

. “Should you find the defendant guilty of robbery it will be necessary for you to find in your verdict whether it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant during the commission of said crime, did:

> (Carry) (Display) (Use) (Threaten to use) or (Attempt to use) any (Weapon).

> Yes X No_

> J. B. Heillnon fsl Foreman”
[No. 111-3.

Division Three.

May 18, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Charles K. Agers, *Appellant.*

*Madison R. Jones,*for appellant (appointed counsel for appeal).

*Arthur R. Eggers, Prosecuting Attorney,*and *Albert J. Golden, Deputy,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

Defendant Charles K. Agers appeals from a conviction on a charge of escape. At the time of the escape, defendant was confined in the Walla Walla County Jail pending the outcome of an appeal of a first-degree forgery conviction.

Error is assigned to the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for: (1) access to the Walla Walla County Law Library for the purpose of preparing a writ of habeas' corpus to attack the forgery judgment and sentence; and (2) a continuance of his escape trial in order to prepare said writ.

Neither proposition is supported by probative au*13thority as required by *State v. Rutherford,*66 Wn.2d 851, 405 P.2d 719 (1965). These two issues are within the discretion of the trial court; we find no abuse of that discretion. Judgment affirmed.

Petition for rehearing denied June 21,1971.

Review denied by Supreme Court July 26,1971.
No. 00-1037.

#### Mandanici *v.*Starr.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
# C_2022318EN.01000901.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2022 — Laure Camerin v European Commission

(Case C-63/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Former official - Sums deducted from retirement pension - Enforcement of a decision of a national court - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2022/C 318/11)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Laure Camerin (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Laure Camerin to bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laure Camerin to bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33217-33218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15199]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR18-64-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.

[[Page 33218]]

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: COH Rates effective 
June 29 2018.
    Filed Date: 7/9/18.
    Accession Number: 201807095045.
    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-966-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement 
Update (Pioneer July 2018) to be effective 7/11/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180710-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, 
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 11, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15199 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
260 La. 703

#### Zainuddin S. KARU v. Daly C. LAVERGNE et al.

No. 52079.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 11, 1972.

In re: Zainuddin S. Karu applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 255 So.2d 483.

Application denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE THIRD
QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                               23,694,978
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                8,648,716
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                     17,140,774
<TRADING-ASSETS>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>         212,375,721
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                3,513,049
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                  3,531,832
<LOANS>                             729,871,176
<ALLOWANCE>                           2,615,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,035,453,468
<DEPOSITS>                          726,829,006
<SHORT-TERM>                                  0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                  13,103,907
<LONG-TERM>                         187,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 79,084
<OTHER-SE>                          108,441,471
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>    1,035,453,468
<INTEREST-LOAN>                      42,191,692
<INTEREST-INVEST>                    10,319,952
<INTEREST-OTHER>                      1,254,233
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                     53,765,877
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                   21,895,479
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   28,689,272
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                25,076,605
<LOAN-LOSSES>                           669,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                      217,179
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                      15,789,324
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      11,177,817
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>           11,177,817
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                          6,639,623
<EPS-BASIC>                              0.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.83
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                             3.40
<LOANS-NON>                           3,905,521
<LOANS-PAST>                                  0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                              0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                      1,949,677
<CHARGE-OFFS>                             3,000
<RECOVERIES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                     2,615,677
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>               2,615,677



</TABLE>
# C_2022024EN.01002202.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland (Sweden) lodged on 5 November 2021 — AI and Åklagarmyndigheten

(Case C-666/21)

(2022/C 24/29)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants and respondents: AI and Åklagarmyndigheten

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the term ‘carriage by road of goods’ in Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) be interpreted as including carriage by a vehicle with a total mass of greater than 3,5 tonnes the main use of which is to provide a temporary living area for private use? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the term ‘carriage by road of goods’ in Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (1) be interpreted as including carriage by a vehicle with a total mass of greater than 3,5 tonnes the main use of which is to provide a temporary living area for private use?

| 2. | In such circumstances, is the vehicle’s cargo capacity or how the vehicle is registered in the national road traffic register of relevance? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In such circumstances, is the vehicle’s cargo capacity or how the vehicle is registered in the national road traffic register of relevance?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1).

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



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                             722
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (100)
<INVENTORY>                                     43,644
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,688
<PP&E>                                          79,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                (42,188)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,545
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      63,906
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,020
<SALES>                                        236,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               236,277
<CGS>                                          166,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  166,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                54,930
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   202
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,054
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,728
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,326
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,326
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of this Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
24-Hour Future Design Value Estimation Bakersfield - Planz

4-km CMAQ simulation for the SJV domain

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 98% DV

2011 43.2 14.9 21.1 38.1 43.2

2012 39.1 27.6 21 40.6 40.6

2013 72.7 30 24.8 83.6 83.6 56

RRF NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST

Q1 0.84 0.83 0.93 0.74 0.85 0.96

Q2 0.74 0.68 0.97 0.81 0.85 0.97

Q3 0.74 0.67 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.97

Q4 0.76 0.73 0.95 0.83 0.85 0.97

Split NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Water Blank Total

2011 0.14 0.36 0.08 0.28 0.04 0.02 0.07

2012 0.15 0.42 0.04 0.20 0.04 0.08 0.08

2013 0.13 0.36 0.05 0.33 0.04 0.03 0.07

2011 6.09 15.38 3.52 12.04 1.78 0.84 3.05 0.50 43.20

2012 5.66 16.36 1.38 7.73 1.36 2.99 3.12 0.50 39.10

2013 9.12 25.84 3.25 24.00 2.75 2.27 4.97 0.50 72.70

2018 5.14 12.74 3.26 8.87 1.50 0.81 2.55 0.50 35.38

2019 4.77 13.56 1.28 5.70 1.15 2.87 2.59 0.50 32.41

2020 7.69 21.41 3.02 17.68 2.32 2.18 4.13 0.50 58.94

Split NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Water Blank Total

2011 0.05 0.00 0.18 0.53 0.07 0.10 0.07

2012 0.04 0.00 0.16 0.56 0.04 0.15 0.06

2013 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.57 0.03 0.21 0.04

2011 0.74 0.00 2.63 7.61 1.04 1.43 0.94 0.50 14.90

2012 1.04 0.00 4.29 15.14 1.09 4.01 1.54 0.50 27.60

2013 0.79 0.00 3.45 16.88 0.89 6.25 1.24 0.50 30.00

2018 0.54 0.00 2.55 6.20 0.89 1.38 0.91 0.50 12.98

2019 0.77 0.00 4.15 12.33 0.93 3.87 1.49 0.50 24.03

2020 0.58 0.00 3.34 13.75 0.76 6.04 1.20 0.50 26.17

Split NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Water Blank Total

2011 0.02 0.00 0.13 0.28 0.06 0.45 0.05

2012 0.03 0.00 0.17 0.30 0.07 0.37 0.06

2013 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.26 0.06 0.43 0.06

Future Mass

Q3 Components:

Current Mass

Current Design Values

Q1 Components:

Current Mass

Future Mass

Q2 Components:
2011 0.46 0.00 2.77 5.79 1.21 9.37 0.99 0.50 21.10

2012 0.67 0.00 3.41 6.20 1.36 7.63 1.22 0.50 21.00

2013 0.69 0.00 3.79 6.37 1.58 10.51 1.36 0.50 24.80

2018 0.34 0.00 2.70 5.00 1.04 9.10 0.97 0.50 19.65

2019 0.50 0.00 3.32 5.36 1.17 7.41 1.19 0.50 19.45

2020 0.51 0.00 3.69 5.50 1.36 10.21 1.32 0.50 23.09

Split NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Water Blank Total

2011 0.14 0.41 0.04 0.22 0.04 0.07 0.08

2012 0.08 0.27 0.04 0.46 0.06 0.04 0.05

2013 0.12 0.36 0.04 0.31 0.05 0.06 0.07

2011 5.19 15.43 1.58 8.34 1.58 2.54 2.95 0.50 38.10

2012 3.28 10.95 1.59 18.28 2.35 1.53 2.11 0.50 40.60

2013 9.68 29.84 3.46 25.59 4.12 4.68 5.72 0.50 83.60

2018 3.95 11.29 1.50 6.93 1.34 2.47 2.17 0.50 30.14

2019 2.49 8.02 1.51 15.19 1.99 1.48 1.57 0.50 32.75

2020 7.37 21.84 3.28 21.26 3.49 4.54 4.22 0.50 66.50

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 98% DV

2018 35.38 12.98 19.65 30.14 35.4

2019 32.41 24.03 19.45 32.75 32.7

2020 58.94 26.17 23.09 66.50 66.5 44.88

Future Mass

Future Design Value

Current Mass

Future Mass

Q4 Components:

Current Mass
# C_2023015EN.01003901.xml

| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 15/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Heinze (K K WATER)

(Case T-610/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark K K WATER - Earlier EU figurative mark K - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 15/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Arne-Patrik Heinze (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Dauskardt, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2020-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 June 2021 (Case R 2327/2020-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by L’Oréal, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by L’Oréal, including those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| 3. | Orders Mr Arne-Patrik Heinze to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Arne-Patrik Heinze to bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 88 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 88

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
consideration of any bill or joint resolution that appropriates foreign 
                 assistance for more than one country.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2013

 Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. 
  Rohrabacher, Mr. Coffman, Mr. Clay, Mr. David Scott of Georgia, Mr. 
Cohen, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Higgins, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. 
Faleomavaega, and Mr. Cotton) submitted the following resolution; which 
                 was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
consideration of any bill or joint resolution that appropriates foreign 
                 assistance for more than one country.

    Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
``Limitation on foreign assistance for more than one country
    ``12. It shall not be in order to consider any bill or joint 
resolution that appropriates foreign assistance for more than one 
country.''.
                                 <all>
```