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

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Richard A. Wisot, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PROLIANCE
INTERNATIONAL, 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 make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

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

c)    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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

b)    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2006             /s/ Richard A. Wisot
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Richard A. Wisot
                                  Chief Financial Officer
```
#### Leo Michael BENALES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-920.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 30, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 4.1.3.2

Memo
to Lenders

June 19, 2007



|                |  |                             
|--------------- |  | ----------------------------
|JPMORGAN [logo] |  | JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.   
|                |  | 600 Travis Street, 20thFloor
|                |  | Houston, TX 77002           

Pursuant to Section 2.19 of the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of June 22, 2006, JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan), as Administrative Agent, declares that the one year extension for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Consolidated Edison, Inc., and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. (the Company) has been
completed and is effective as of today, June 19, 2007. The new maturity date of the Companys 5-year revolving credit facility will be June 22, 2012.

The banks listed below have approved the one year extension:



|                             |  |                     |              
|---------------------------- |  | ------------------- | -------------
|Institution                  |  | ExtensionCommitment
|JPMorgan Chase               |  | $                   | 220,000,000  
|Citibank                     |  | $                   | 220,000,000  
|Bank of New York             |  | $                   | 160,000,000  
|Key Bank                     |  | $                   | 160,000,000  
|Wachovia Bank                |  | $                   | 160,000,000  
|Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ |  | $                   | 125,000,000  
|Barclays                     |  | $                   | 125,000,000  
|HSBC Bank USA                |  | $                   | 125,000,000  
|Lehman                       |  | $                   | 125,000,000  
|Merrill Lynch                |  | $                   | 125,000,000  
|Morgan Stanley               |  | $                   | 125,000,000  
|RBS                          |  | $                   | 125,000,000  
|UBS                          |  | $                   | 125,000,000  
|Mellon                       |  | $                   | 75,000,000   
|Mizuho                       |  | $                   | 75,000,000   
|Commerce Bank                |  | $                   | 45,000,000   
|State Street Bank            |  | $                   | 45,000,000   
|Wells Fargo                  |  | $                   | 45,000,000   
|Total                        |  | $                   | 2,205,000,000

Thank you for your continued support of the Company.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-18-00194-CR

__________________

JOHN DEE WETER JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 359th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 15-08-08092-CR

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 29, 2019, the State filed a motion to abate, in which the State 

indicated that the appellant, John Dee Weter Jr., is deceased. Because the death 

occurred after Weter perfected the appeal and before we issued our mandate, the 

appeal must be permanently abated. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(a)(2). Accordingly, we 

permanently abate the appeal.
2

APPEAL PERMANENTLY ABATED.

_________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on June 11, 2019

Opinion Delivered June 12, 2019

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
251 La. 753

#### Charles BROUSSARD et al. v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 49067.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: Charles Broussard and William Broussard applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vermilion. 204 So.2d 714.

The application is denied. The judgment complained of is correct.

McCaleb, J.,

concurs notwithstanding that he shares the consternation expressed by the Court of Appeal as to its right to increase or reduce awards in damage suits within the framework of the reviewing powers granted it by the Constitution, particularly in view of the latest rumination of this Court in Lomenick v. Schoeffler, 250 La. 959, 200 So.2d 127—as he is of the opinion that, on the facts found by the Court of Appeal in this case, it does not appear that the award of the district judge is excessive.
#### ROLLINS SERVICES, a division of Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY and its Board of County Commissioners, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-1328.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 24, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 11, 1973.

*521Horton & Perse, Miami, for appellant.

William W. Gibbs and Andrew Psalides, Miami, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and SPECTOR, SAM, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of the trial court’s judgment which upheld the appel-lee’s right to unilaterally terminate a contract under which appellant rendered janitorial services at Miami International Airport.

The second amended complaint filed by appellant alleged numerous and diverse claims of illegality on appellee’s part including an unalwful conspiracy, violation of the right to work provision of the State Constitution, Article I, Section 6, F.S.A. Appellees’ decision to terminate the contract was characterized, inter alia, as arbitrary, capricious, unjust, unfair and discriminatory.

The court below considered the evidence and admitted depositions and held that the charges and accusations were not supported by the evidence. Our review and consideration of the record leave no room to doubt or question the trial court’s finding in this regard. Indeed, the record is totally devoid of any evidence tending to support appellant’s injudicious accusations of wrongdoing by appellees.

The contract entered into by the parties expressly reserved unto appellees the right to do what it elected to do in the following language:

> “The Authority may at its option and discretion, terminate the Contract at any time, without any default on the part of the Contractor, by giving a written notice to the Contractor and his Surety at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of the termination set forth in the notice.”

Contract provisions reserving the right to terminate an agreement are generally recognized by the authorities. The prevailing rule is stated by McQuillan as follows :

> “Even though not expressly authorized by statute, the power to terminate a contract may be reserved, and obviously a city may revoke a contract when it has reserved such a right.” McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, Section 29.120.

The validity of a contract clause which provides for unilateral termination of the contractual relationship has been approved in this jurisdiction. Thompson v. Shell Petroleum Corporation, 130 Fla. 652, 178 So. 413, and City Market Building v. Giglio, 157 Fla. 760, 26 So.2d 785.

The trial court’s ruling that appellees’ action in terminating the contract in question was a valid and lawful exercise of a contractual right which it had specifically reserved is fully supported by both the law and the evidence adduced by the parties.

Affirmed.
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 Annual Report of Centenary International Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carlos Fabian De Sousa, 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, to the best of my knowledge:





(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 the operations of the Company.





/s/ Carlos Fabian De SousaCarlos Fabian De SousaChief Financial OfficerMarch 15, 2011





This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          34,989
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                       243
<INVENTORY>                                      3,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,557
<PP&E>                                         178,875
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,153
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,910
<BONDS>                                          3,305
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           145
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   181,963
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,412
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    14
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,728
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,648
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,080
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,080
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Fourth Quarter 2005 and 2006
          (in percent)



                                    Fourth     Fourth       90-Percent
Area                                quarter    quarter  Confidence Interval (&plusmn;)a
                                     2005       2006    of 2006 rate of difference

United States.....................      69.0       68.9        0.5         0.4

  Inside Metropolitan
     Statistical Areas............      67.6       67.6        1.3         0.5
    In principal cities...........      54.3       54.4        1.0         0.5
    Not in principal cities
    (suburbs).....................      76.5       76.4        1.2         0.5
  Outside Metropolitan
    Statistical Areas.............      76.2       75.7        2.6         0.7

 Northeast........................      65.4       65.3        0.9         0.8
 Midwest..........................      72.8       73.0        1.0         0.7
 South............................      71.1       70.8        0.9         0.6
 West.............................      64.6       64.5        1.2         0.8
 
 
    aA 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliability.  The larger
the confidence interval is, in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.
Note:  Metropolitan Statistical Area data for 2005 and later are not comparable to earlier data.  Beginning in 
first quarter 2005, the Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey is using the new metropolitan and 
micropolitan definitions that were announced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in June 2003, and were 
based on the application of the 2000 standards to Census 2000 data.  OMB announced updates as of December 2003, 
based on application of the 2000 standards to more recent Census Bureau estimates.  In this report, outside 
Metropolitan Statistical Areas includes micropolitan and non-metropolitan statistical areas.  The December 2003 definitions
are available at:  http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metrodef.html and 
http:/www/census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html.
**Exhibit 32.1.1**

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Kevin Burke, the Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc.(the “Company”) certify that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: February 21, 2007
1200 Rue Des Etoiles

– Carencro, LA 70520 (337) 896

‐ 2880

02

‐ 03

‐ 11

Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement

Director Michael R. Bromwich

1849 C Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20240

Email Letters to: Thomas Lillie, Chie f of Staff, Thomas.Lillie@boemre.gov

Copy: Lori LeBlanc, GEST, lori@lorileblancllc.com

Gentlemen,

The Interim Final Safety Rule’s “should” to “must” issue is a critical one. We at Energy Solutions

Technology, LLC are aligned with and support the efforts of Louisiana DNR Secretary Scott Angelle and

the Back to Work Coalition to work with you on a swiftly adopting a solution.

The change from “should” to “mus t” for documents incorporated by reference is unnecessarily

burdensome to operators and results in some cases of increased safety risk and some cases where

compliance is impossible.

The purpose of the Interim Final Rule is to improve drilling safety

– and we believe that the compromise

proposed by the Coalition does this

– it sharpens the focus of the rule to drilling safety and the specific

areas of concern that were the cause for the rule.

We are no t aware of any added safety benefit to be gained from revising the language from “should”

to “must” in over 14,000 provisions; and we are actually aware of several instances where safety would

be compromised or compliance would be impossible. We urge you to consider the solution put forth by

the Back to Work Coalition so tha t we can safely return to work in the Gulf.

It is past

‐ due

‐ time for skilled workers in the oil and gas industry to return to work in the Gulf of

Mexico and get this country and this industry moving again.

Regards,

Maurice Breaux

Energy Soluti ons Technology
No. 11900.

#### The State of Ohio *v.*Rogers et al.

Decided October 19, 1909.

Exceptions to the Probate Court of Wood county.

*Mr. William Dunipace,*prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. James & Kelly,*for defendants in error.

Exceptions overruled.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Si-iauck and Price, JJ., concur. .
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2502

RICKY W. LEECH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES TURNER, Corporal; CHARLES SUMMERS, Corporal, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA98-161-PJM) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Irving Dross, David Michael Kopstein, DROSS, LEVENSTEIN, PERILMAN & KOPSTEIN, Seabrook, Maryland, for Appellant. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Michael Allan Fry, Assistant Solicitor,Frank William Mann, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Ricky Leech appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants on Leech’s complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) and state tort law. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion. The district court properly found that there was no genuine issue of material fact and defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Leech v. Turner , No. CA-98-161-PJM (D. Md. Sept. 28, 1998).We decline to review claims Leech raises for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Stefan A. Bird,  President of Salton Sea Funding Corporation (the "Company"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the  Company  for the  quarterly
         period  ended June 30,  2003 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
         requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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


Dated:   August 7, 2003



                               /s/ Stefan A. Bird
                               ------------------
                                 Stefan A. Bird
                                    President
                            (chief executive officer)