alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 99.1.2

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 Quarterly Report of GIANT GROUP, LTD. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Pasquale A. Ambrogio,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 at of 1934; and in all material
          respects, the consolidated financial condition and result of
          operations of the Company.

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
          material respects, the consolidated financial condition and result of
          operations of the Company.

/s/ Pasquale A. Ambrogio
-----------------------------
    Pasquale A. Ambrogio
PCCI 

## ceived m IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS TMMMAlAPPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS 

## NO. ot-q-00o<*~aa f^ 22 2015 •"«»Acosia, Clerk JOSE AMILPAS Appellant, On Appeal from the V. 174TM District Court of Harris County, Texas; Trial Cause Number 1334791 THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### PETITIONER'S MOTION TOEXTEND TIME TO FILE FILED IN 

# PETITIONFORDISCRETIONARYREVIEV^QURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS MAY 2 2 2015 TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

### Abe|Acosta, Clerk JOSE AMIPLAS, Petitioner in the above cause number, would respectfully request the Court to grant his motion to extend the time to file his petition for 

### discretionary review. In support of said motion, Appellant would show unto the Court the following:
I. 

### This appeal lies from Appellant's convictions in The State of Texas 'v. Jose 

### Amilpas, No. 01-14-00053rCR; Cause Number 1334791 inthe 174th District Criminal Court of Harris County, Texas. Mr. Amilpas was charged with felony possession of more than fourgrams and less than 200grams of cocaine with intent to deliver. Mr. 

### Amilpas pleaded not guilty to the offense andafter ajury found himguilty as chargedthe trial court assessed punishment at thirty (30) years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice pursuant to an agreed recommendation by the State. Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review is due May 25, 2015. This is Appellant's first request for an extension to file the petition for discretionary review.
II. Appellant is requesting an extension oftime in order to fully evaluate the issues to be raised in the PDR. An extension of time is necessary so that the petition for 

### discretionary review can be timely filed. This motion is not made for the purpose of delay. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this 

### Honorable Court will grant this requested extension of time to file the Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review in the above cause for ninety days and extend the time for filing the petition until July 24, 2015.Respectfully submitted,

Mr. Jose Amilpa^ TDCJ No. 01908295 French Robertson Unit 12071 FM 3522 Abilene, Texas 79601

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE !4i=-

I do hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing instrument was this day&2rved 

### oncounsel for the State by mailing same tothe following parties onthis theffifflay of
Mr. Allen Curry Harris County District Attorney's Office Appellate Division 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 State Prosecuting Attorney P.O. Box 12405 Austin, Texas 78711

c L6se Amilpas, PRO SE
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00610-CR

Patricia LEOS a/k/a Patricia Leos Martinez,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial Distri ct Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2002-CR-8105

Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 17, 2008

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss th is appeal by withdr awing her notice of

appeal. The motion is granted a nd this appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice; extension of public comment deadline.

# SUMMARY:

                        The comment period for the Notice of Availability of the Draft Feasibility Report and Integrated Environmental Impact Statement for the Adams and Denver Counties, Colorado General Investigation Study, Adams and Denver County, Colorado published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Monday, July 2, 2018, and required comments be postmarked on or before August 16, 2018. The Corps is extending the deadline for submitting public comments to August 28, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mr. Jeffrey Bohlken, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at (402) 995-2671 or by email at                         *Jeffrey.C.Bohlken@usace.army.mil.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Draft EIS can be downloaded from                     *www.nwo.usace.army.mil/​Missions/​Civil-Works/​Planning/​Project-Reports/​.*

Brenda S. Bowen,

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-15429 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
#### FLORIDA REALTY BUILDING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CAMPBELL-DICKEY ADVERTISING, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-805.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 21. Subsidiaries of the Registrant

     Interchange  Bank (formerly  known as Interchange  State Bank),  Washington
Interchange Corporation and Clover Leaf Mortgage Company, Inc., all of which are
incorporated  in  New  Jersey,  are  wholly  owned  direct  subsidiaries  of the
Registrant.

     Clover Leaf  Investment  Corporation  and Clover Leaf Insurance  Agency are
incorporated  in  New  Jersey  and  are  wholly  owned  direct  subsidiaries  of
Interchange  Bank.  Clover  Leaf  Management  Realty  Corporation,  a New Jersey
Corporation,  which  is  also  incorporated  in  New  Jersey,  is 99%  owned  by
Interchange Bank.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 748 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 748

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 13, 2014.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5682) to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. 
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and 
(2) one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D . C. , 20460

MEMORANDUM 

### DA TE: Sept embe r 4 , 20 14 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUT I ON PREVENTION PC Cod e: 128973 DP Barcode: 418735

SUBJECT: EPA Respon se to Waiver Request fo r an Anaerobic Aquatic Metabol ism s tud y (GLN 835.4400) in Support of the R egistratio n Re v iew of P rimisulfuron-methyl. 

### TO: Chr i s tina Sc hel t e ma, Chemi c al R eview Manager Michae l Goodis , Chief RM53 Pesti cide Re-Evaluati o n Di v i s ion 7508 P FROM : Andrew She lby, Physical

## Scientist**~** ....?'

## ~ /' 

# 1- '1 · fl( E nv i ronmental Risk B ranch 6 / """ / E nvironmental Fates and Effects Divi s io n 7507P THROUGH: Mark Corbin , Branch Chief 

# /) II () 

# r I Envir o nm ental Ri sk Branch 6

## ~**~** E nv i ro nm e nt al Fates and Effec t s Di visio n 7507P ln r esponse to the posting in t h e pub li c docket of the ··Prim i sulfuron-methyl Generic Data Ca ll-In Not ice (Document ID EPA-HQ-OPP-20 I l- 0844-00 14 in www . regulation

. gov ), the regis tra nt Synge nta Crop Protection p rovide d a waiver re que st r e l ate d to the d ata re q uest 

### Jor an anaerobic aq u atic metabo li s m s tudy for p ri mis ul furon-methyl. E PA reque sted the data to bette r parameterize the s urface wate r modeling as curre nt ly 2X the anaerobic so il metabo li s m value is conserva ti vely ass umed. The purpose of thi s memorand um is to address the waiver requests for thi s s tudy . Syngenta pro vides a se n s iti vity analysis (M RID 49318201) assuming E PA 's conse rvativ e esti mate of anaerobic aquatic metabol ism in the absence of data ( half-life = 178 days) and an ass um ed leas t conse rvat ive va lue (half-life = 1 day). Us i ng th e PE5 s he ll of PRZM/EXAMS , acute values va ri e d b y up to 6% and c hro nic values var ied b y up to 8%. Syngenta co nclud es that conducting an anaero bic aquatic metaboli sm study ha s very low p oten tial to add va lue to eithe r adrinking water assessment or ecological risk assessment. Therefore, Syngenta accepts the EPA's 

### proposed primisulfuron-methyl anaerobic aquatic metabolism half-life of 178 days (total test system) for risk assessment purposes rather than conduct i ng a new study. The Environmenta l Fate and Effects Division (EFED) recommends accepting this waiver r equest from Sy ngenta as they have demonstrated the impact of the requested data would be small and they accept the conservative assumption made in its absence.

2
#### MIDYETTE-MOOR, INC. v. Leola SCOTT.

No. 38623.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So.2d 178.
#### Lois FOWLER, Appellant, v. W. F. ANDERSON, individually and as County Judge of Levy County, Florida, Appellee.

No. L-385.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Nov. 13, 1969.

John Paul Howard, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Albert C. Simmons, Bronson, and R. Luther Beauchamp, Bronson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The complaint in this cause alleges sufficient facts to make it apparent that the appellee was acting within his judicial authority as a judge, and although maybe a little over zealously, no liability for his action attaches and the trial court was not in error in dismissing the complaint.

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6397

STEVE ALLEN SHELTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (7:06-cv-00549-jct)

Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 30, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steve Allen Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Steve Allen Shelton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Shelton has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I,Richard E. Gaetz, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vitran Corporation Inc.; 

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 makethe 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 respectsthe 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 (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 ensurethat 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; 

c) 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 

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 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 internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the Audit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Directors: 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Anyfraud, 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 26, 2010
**Exhibit 12.1**

I, Leif Johansson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of AB Volvo (publ);

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’s other certifying officer 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 company and have:

- 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 company, 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;  evaluated the effectiveness of the company’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; anddisclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 
5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’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 company’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 company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: June 18, 2004 /s/ Leif Johansson 				Name: Leif Johansson				Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Gregory G. HIGHTOWER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-657.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 16, 1969.

Gregory G. Hightower, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having filed a statement, and on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. The appellant’s request for this court to appoint counsel for him is denied. See: State v. Weeks, Fla. 1964, 166 So.2d 892.

Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
Exhibit 10.28

AMENDMENT

OF

CONSULTING AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT of Consulting Agreement
(herein Amendment) is made this 22ndday of May 2007, by and between EXAR Corporation, a corporation
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal office at 48720 Kato Road, Fremont, California 94538 (herein Exar), and Richard L. Leza, an individual residing at 60653 Desert Shadows Drive, La Quinta,
California, 92253 (herein Mr. Leza). This Amendment is pursuant to Section 14 of that certain Agreement dated February 22, 2007 (herein Agreement), which permits the parties to modify its terms by a written document
signed by both parties.

IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises exchanged, the parties agree as follows:



|1. | GENERAL
|-- | -------

Except as
otherwise provided in this Amendment, the contractual relationship of the parties will continue to be governed by the terms and conditions of the Agreement. This Amendment shall not be construed as a modification of any provision of the Agreement
unless such provision, or portion thereof, is expressly modified herein.



|2. | TERM
|-- | ----



|3. | The term of Agreement will be extended for an additional period of two (2) months commencing on the date specified above and ending on July 22, 2007,
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written, in counterparts, each of
which shall be considered an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument.



|                 |  |                                 |  |                 |  |        |  |                          
|---------------- |  | ------------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------
|EXAR CORPORATION |  |                                 |  | RICHARD L. LEZA
|                 |  |                                 |  |                
|By:              |  | /s/ John S. McFarlane           |  |                 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Richard L. Leza      
|Name:            |  | John S. McFarlane               |  |                 |  | Name:  |  | Richard L. Leza          
|Title:           |  | Chair, Corporate Governance and |  |                 |  | Title: |  | Interim President and CEO
|                 |  | Nominating Committee            |  |                 |  |        |  |                          
|Date:            |  | May 22, 2007                    |  |                 |  | Date:  |  | May 22. 2007