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

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

I, Joseph C. Tusa, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofCOMSYS IT Partners, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of COMSYS IT Partners, 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 the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements 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 theregistrant 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, orcaused 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 pursuant to SEC Release No. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; 

 

(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 endof 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 anannual 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 financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of 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 reasonablylikely 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 controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 6, 2005
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 20, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00681

- CR

Demoria HARRIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR3 824

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The court reporter’s notification of late record is hereby GRANTED. Time is extended to

January 12, 2017. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereun to set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 20th day of December, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Table 5.  Homeownership Rates for the United States: 1965 to 1999 



           First   Second    Third   Fourth
   Year   Quarter  Quarter  Quarter  Quarter

1999.....    66.7
1998.....    65.9     66.0     66.8     66.4
1997.....    65.4     65.7     66.0     65.7
1996.....    65.1     65.4     65.6     65.4
1995.....    64.2     64.7     65.0     65.1
1994.....    63.8     63.8     64.1     64.2
1993\r...    63.7     63.9     64.2     64.2

1993.....    64.2     64.4     64.7     64.6
1992.....    64.0     63.9     64.3     64.4
1991.....    63.9     63.9     64.2     64.2
1990.....    64.0     63.7     64.0     64.1
1989\r...    63.9     63.8     64.1     63.8

1989.....    63.9     63.9     64.0     63.8
1988.....    63.7     63.7     64.0     63.8
1987.....    63.8     63.8     64.2     64.1
1986.....    63.6     63.8     63.8     63.9
1985.....    64.1     64.1     63.9     63.5
1984.....    64.6     64.6     64.6     64.1
1983.....    64.7     64.7     64.8     64.4
1982.....    64.8     64.9     64.9     64.5
1981.....    65.6     65.3     65.6     65.2
1980.....    65.5     65.5     65.8     65.5
1979\r...    64.8     64.9     65.8     65.4

1979.....    65.3     65.1     66.0     65.8
1978.....    64.8     64.4     65.2     65.4
1977.....    64.8     64.5     65.0     64.9
1976.....    64.6     64.6     64.9     64.8
1975.....    64.4     64.9     64.6     64.5
1974.....    64.8     64.8     64.6     64.4
1973.....    64.9     64.4     64.4     64.4
1972.....    64.3     64.5     64.3     64.4
1971.....    64.0     64.1     64.4     64.5
1970.....    64.3     64.0     64.4     64.0
1969.....    64.1     64.4     64.4     64.4
1968.....    63.6     64.1     64.1     63.6
1967.....    63.3     63.9     63.8     63.5
1966.....    63.5     63.2     63.3     63.8
1965.....    62.9     62.9     62.9     63.4

\r Revised.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormac k
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein
Kurtis T. Wilder Elizabeth T. Clement,
Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at t he direction of the Court.

May 16, 2018 

# Order

Clerk 

### May 16, 2018

157544(62)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 157544 v COA: 341352 Wayne CC: 05-002715-FC MICHAEL RENE GARRETT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellan t to file a supplement to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The supplem ent will be accepted for filing if submitted on o r before May 30, 2018.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 13

PORTIONS OF THE 2003 SUMMARY ANNUAL REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS


STOCK DATA

Cox's Class A Common Stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

Ticker Symbol:  COX

Daily newspaper stock table listing:  CoxComm A

As of January 30, 2004, there were 4,094 shareholders of record of Cox's Class A
Common Stock, two shareholders of record of Cox's Class C Common Stock and four
shareholders of record of Cox's Preferred Stock. There is no established trading
market for Cox's Class C Common Stock or Preferred Stock. There have been no
stock dividends paid on any of Cox's equity securities. Cox does not currently
intend to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

QUARTERLY MARKET INFORMATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     CLASS A COMMON STOCK
                                     --------------------
                                       HIGH        LOW
                                     --------   ---------
<S>                                  <C>        <C>
2003
First Quarter                        $ 32.48    $ 25.85
Second Quarter                         34.48      28.53
Third Quarter                          34.90      30.40
Fourth Quarter                         34.99      31.47

2002
First Quarter                        $ 42.09    $ 31.70
Second Quarter                         37.59      24.50
Third Quarter                          29.19      18.95
Fourth Quarter                         32.00      21.70
</TABLE>
AAM-12-252-E April 30, 2012

Exemption No. 10519 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1132

Ms. Robin Carroll Barron Aviation Private Flight Services, LLC 6079 County Road 425 Hannibal, MO 63401

Dear Ms. Carroll:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 26, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Barron Aviation Private Fli ght Services, LLC (Barron Aviation) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Fe deral Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Barron Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Barron Aviation.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Barron Aviation Private Flight Services, LLC an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Barron Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Barron Aviation are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Barron Aviation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on March 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
#### Victor David ORFALY, Appellant, v. Raymond JEFFRIES and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, etc., Appellees.

No. 73-565.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 27, 1974.

*576Wilson, Burns & Browd, Miami, for appellant.

Corlett, Merritt, Killian & Mascaro and Robyn Greene, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Following a review of the petition for rehearing in this cause, the opinion filed heretofore in this cause on December 21, 1973 be and the same is hereby withdrawn. Substituted in place thereof is the following opinion.

The question to be determined on this appeal is whether or not the plaintiff in the trial court “appropriately and properly” raised the applicability of a comparative negligence charge. The matter in the trial court occurred between the date the Fourth District Court of Appeal rendered its decision in Jones v. Hoffman, Fla.App.1973, 272 So.2d 529, and the date the Supreme Court of Florida rendered its decision in Hoffman v. Jones, Fla.1973, 280 So.2d 431.

It is conceded that no written comparative negligence charge was submitted by the plaintiff in accordance with Rule 1.470(b), F.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A., and that only an oral request to the court to entertain such was made.

Following a review of the Supreme Court opinion in Thornton v. Elliott, Fla. 1973, 288 So.2d 254, and this court’s opinion in Butler v. Woolco Department Store, Fla.App.1973, 284 So.2d 434, and the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in Rittenbery v. Eddins, Fla.App.1973, 272 So.2d 840, we conclude that the request for a comparative negligence charge was “appropriately and properly” made during the trial, which would bring the matter within the retrospective application of Hoffman v. Jones, Fla.1973, 280 So.2d 431.

Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby reversed, with instructions to grant the plaintiff a new trial.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Dwelling-houses—
numbered in the
order of visitation. :

ae ee
37
AA ie PZ ,

ag CM
40

3S

or a

SCHEDULE 1—Free Inhabitants in fae dba tang loi in the County of
ee art Pee enumerated by me, on the a ell day of fune. 1860. 2.222:

Post Office Z-avd& petra. bo

rn a — a “iy —- _
33 Description.
2% : |
Er _ | The name of every person whose usual Profession, Occupation, or Trade of
‘ os place of abode on the first day of June, each person, male and female, over
£63 1860, was in this family.

Ess
i,

AF EM A Ea, 7,

2 ol available records like the one shown here.

C/ 4 Ad 4 FA ‘A

a y
Af-tTLt (A £7

as (PAA
/
No. white males, Ld No. colored males, ae No. foreign born,

No. blind, __—_
. Ay wa » _ .
No. white females, xe No. colored females, _ S No. deafand dumb, _—s=—«—mNo. ingzane, __

7 3¢

— a — ——_ -_— — —$__———_— —— ——— — A = a ee a. = A

Historic census records are maintained and released by | /

er a the National Archives and Records Administration, a
feadistt — not the U.S. Census Bureau.
‘ 5 | ay 4
#4 7 Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly -~ = .

Page No. £2 .

Marshal
Vase oF Rerars Owe. > TS +: _ '
) = = at
cs | Sik Whether deafand
; = /gaglte an
_, Renee Bathy, - ee < >| 23 | dumb, blind, insane,
Naming the State, Territory, | # =|® « 5
Value of zs : idiotic, pauper, or
Persona] or Country. 7s ict
—. BS] #8 | convie.
: = |<3|s3
9 10 iF | | 3 14

\
"
| |

| ~
nm
q j
7-2 AC &» B BW

— _ cy ee
= we ) —-

om
Na

Le
\} oR

ws
&

=
aj

AYN
\

\

“

pe
©

a
i)

aw
De
| 22 |
23
24
Ds
26
Rs
ital
cere
Bese
Pearse
aa
cables’

(

¢ 8 8 &

“ee e2e# &

s+ & &

\
« *
'
i
;
‘
#### Lou GHELFI, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-417.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 11, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1523 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent qualified school 

construction bonds and qualified zone academy bonds, to treat qualified 

zone academy bonds as specified tax credit bonds, and to modify the 

private business contribution requirement for qualified zone academy 

bonds. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. BROWN, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. JOHNSON

of South Dakota) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent 

qualified school construction bonds and qualified zone 

academy bonds, to treat qualified zone academy bonds 

as specified tax credit bonds, and to modify the private 

business contribution requirement for qualified zone 

academy bonds. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rebuilding America’s 

5 Schools Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1523 IS

1 SEC. 2. QUALIFIED SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 54F of 

3 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

4 as follows: 

5 ‘‘(c) NATIONAL LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF BONDS

6 DESIGNATED.—There is a national qualified school con7 struction bond limitation for each calendar year after 

8 2013 in the amount of $11,000,000,000.’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall apply to obligations issued after Decem11 ber 31, 2013. 

12 SEC. 3. MODIFICATIONS RELATING TO QUALIFIED ZONE 

13 ACADEMY BONDS. 

14 (a) LIMITATION MADE PERMANENT.—Paragraph (1) 

15 of section 54E(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

16 is amended to read as follows: 

17 ‘‘(1) NATIONAL LIMITATION.—There is a na18 tional zone academy bond limitation for each cal19 endar year after 2013 in the amount of 

20 $1,400,000,000.’’. 

21 (b) MODIFICATION OF PRIVATE BUSINESS CON22 TRIBUTION REQUIREMENT.—Subsection (b) of section 

23 54E of such Code is amended— 

24 (1) by striking ‘‘if the eligible local education 

25 agency’’ and inserting ‘‘if— 

26 ‘‘(1) the eligible local education agency’’, and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1523 IS

1 (2) by striking the period at the end and insert2 ing ‘‘, or 

3 ‘‘(2) the issue will be pooled with other such 

4 issues through the acquisition by, or the sponsorship 

5 or assistance of, a private, nonprofit corporation es6 tablished in the District of Columbia and specifically 

7 recognized by Congress for the purpose of leveraging 

8 resources and stimulating private investment in edu9 cation technology infrastructure.’’. 

10 (c) DIRECT PAYMENT OPTION.—Clause (iii) of sec11 tion 6431(f)(3)(A) of such Code is amended by striking 

12 ‘‘54E)’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘54E), or’’. 

13 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to obligations issued after Decem15 ber 31, 2013. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Infrared Spectrum 

CONFIDENTIAL 

BUSINESS INFORMATION 

40-CFR 2.201-2.215
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         161,627
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,112
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,047
<INVENTORY>                                     20,415
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,522
<PP&E>                                          61,706
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,478
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,290,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,824
<BONDS>                                         83,076
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     647,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,290,765
<SALES>                                        340,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               340,813
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  429,876
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (553)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,570
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (122,080)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,271)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (112,809)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  60,600
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (9,280)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (61,489)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### Marvin F. THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. M. J. HAYNES, Respondent.

No. 41368.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 21, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 249 So.2d 69.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
a i

() DEPARTMENT OF COMMEnCE--suRian OF THE CENSUS : 4 e 6B.
win teh FIFTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1930 capsge e f K 25,
wetaety mh 8 Seat: Ki... 40. POPULATION SCHEDULE srs ett ne 22 | AE

fe Waid : } A——— 73"
Ec Unincorporated place Fr NC A eae Se ate ____._...-. | Enumerated by me oa lopnil 2H 1930, Mlle Was. / Msn bo 7 =

Qinsert proper name and ale name of class, as township, town, precinct, d district, eto. Bee instructions) (Enter name of apy unincorporated place having approximately 500 inhabitants or more. See instructions) (insect mame of institution, if any, and indicate the lines on which the entries are made. Bee instructions.)

e
PLACE OF ABODE NAME HOME DATA PLACE OF BIRTH LANGUAGE) OF FOREIGN BORN CITIZENSHIP, ETC. OCCUPATION AND INDUSTRY —— VETERANS )
2 a]

RELATION a os Seo wae
of each whose place of abode on t of =
Sinse April f, 1950, was in this family Relationship of | Fi Pithe United States; give State or Tormtory, it ot foreign give ire country i in a aati ee Be Pu wv
. Enter surname first, then the given mame and this person to Sa which birthplace is now situated. (See Instructions. Canada heneeeee spoken | (For office we only. . =.
yp middle initial, if any the head of the i | French from Canada-English, and Irish Free State from Northern Ireland inhome before} Pecan) pt =e eae wm
aad aenmeremmeaae et A i 3 ie ales m |%
, ea | Ee

United States
out. Comey
A B 2s O Bw al 38

i
:
=|]

Attended school

oe
since Sept.1,1929

Marital con-
dition
college any tim

PERSON FATHER MOTHER

E Age at first

1| 2 i 5

b= & | Color or race

Scere "Be Ri eae RR

ae The YW Ad Us ASEM) OES Ree ON J

Aanleé lu b6 A Pets Ae “ par Wbade a
Historic census records are maintained and released by

the National Archives and Records Administration,
not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http:/Awww.archives.gov for more information about publicly
available records like the one shown here.

BERS

Ele FS ESISISEES

ed

FS
Te]

Fis

22 7U
1959V W

iS
SS

AL 2 0 Sw
6v7V\W

SEV

Be tcl
ISW

so |w

SoU

2

SSSERSS

oF
S37
TwlA!

CME.6 1-16, 9 08 Br a oe Bt. 5, ant 20—Der i fetes ere Fee
Cos. 7, j. 8.9, 006 ewes OF ely. (Ca. 8 eae

SEVERAL ¥ as a8 FOLLOWS: Pts 1 ai pop tala
Exhibit
32.2
  
 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 Coates International, Ltd. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”),
I, Barry C. Kaye, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, as of the date hereof, 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 my knowledge, the Company’s Form 10-Q fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 
 May 14,
      2008
                
                /s/ Barry
      C. KayeBarry
      C. KayeTreasurer,
      Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer
#### STATE of Florida, on the relation of Christopher ROSS, on his own behalf and in behalf of others similarly situated, Relator, v. Honorable Russell McINTOSH and Honorable Vaughn Rudnick, as Judges of the Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County, Respondents.

No. 71-339.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 9, 1971.

Mandamus dismissed.