alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of JWC Acquisition Corp.;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
statement 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 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 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 controls 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 controls
over financial reporting.
 Date: January 3, 2011
    /s/ David A. FiorentinoDavid A. FiorentinoChief Financial Officer
251 La. 680

#### Gerald D. RUTHARDT et al. v. James R. TENNANT.

No. 48981.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 17, 1967.

In re: Jerry L. Dennis applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, 203 So.2d 389.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### James H. CAMERON, Defendant-Appellant, v. Lynne McCreight CAMERON, Complainant-Appellee.

No. 47059.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 9, 1973.

*450Minniece, Hamilton, Neville & Hamill, Pros. Atty., Snow, Covington, Temple & Watts, Meridian, for defendant-appellant.

Irvin L. Martin, Jr., Meridian, for complainant-appellee.

PATTERSON, Justice:

This is an appeal from that portion of a decree which increased prospectively the support payments of the father for his two children and which awarded payment of attorney’s fees to their mother. The assignments urged are that the Chancery Court of Lauderdale County erred in modifying the payments since there was no material change of circumstances subsequent to the original decree and the court erred in directing the payment of attorney’s fees because the appellee had sufficient funds therefor.

The record does not reveal and the chancellor did not find there was a material change of circumstances in the appellant’s financial status since the entry of the original decree. The increase of support payments one year and four years from the date of the modifying decree was error in the absence of a change of circumstances. Hooker v. Hooker, 205 So.2d 276 (Miss.1967), and Howard v. Howard, 191 So.2d 528 (Miss.1966). *See also*Bunkley & Morse’s Amis, Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, § 6.11, p. 193 (1957).

 The record does not disclose the appellee to be unable to pay her attorney. In fact, it indicates that she was as financially capable of payment, if not more so, than was her former husband. Under these circumstances the award was error. In Bunkley & Morse’s Amis, Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, section 5.08 (1957), it is correctly stated that the same criterion for an award of attorney s fees exists at the time of modification of a decree as exists at the time of the divorce decree. Lindsey v. Lindsey, 219 Miss. 540, 69 So.2d 203 (1954) ; Castleberry v. Castleberry, 214 Miss. 94, 58 So.2d 67 (1952); Gresham v. Gresham, 199 Miss. 778, 25 So.2d 760 (1946), and Walters v. Walters, 180 Miss. 268, 177 So. 507 (1937).

In view of these authorities the cause is reversed and rendered.

Reversed and rendered.

GILLESPIE, C. J., and INZER, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Miscellaneous
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB12-TPS.22 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  FRIDAY, APRIL 27, 2012 USA Counties These files contain demographic, economic and governmental statistics from the Census Bureau and other federal agencies, presented for the purpose of multi-county comparisons or single county profiles. National- and state-level statistics are presented as well. The files cover topics such as agriculture, crime, education, health, retail trade and vital statistics. New in this update are additional statistics from the 2005-2009 American Community Survey for economic and housing characteristics and 2010 federal spending. Internet address: <http://censtats.census.gov/usa/usa.shtml>. **No news release associated with this report. Tip Sheet only.**
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### M. D. Nobles, Respondent, *vs.*P. H.Spaulding, Admr., of the estate of Z. M. Spaulding, deceased, Appellant.

1. *Practice*— Supreme *Court*— No *final judgment, etc.*— An appeal brought to the Supreme Court without any final judgment will be dismissed.

*Appeal from JYodaway Circuit Court.*

*H. M. Jackson,*for Appellant.

Johnston, *Dawson &*Edwards, for Respondent.

Sherwood, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Motion in Nodaway Probate Court to set aside allowance against decedent’s estate. Motion overruled. Appeal to Circuit Court. Motion there renewed, and again overruled and appeal here. No final judgment. - Appeal dismissed.

The other judges concur.
#### Vincent MILLER, Jr., Appellant, v. Frank JILL, Appellee.

No. 71-173.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 24, 1972.

John D. Kruse, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Richard Riddle, of Coleman, Leonard, Morrison & Riddle, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal (oral argument having been waived). On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

REED, C. J., and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
252 La. 835

#### Frank William SKYLES v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY.

No. 49351.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 3, 1968.

In re: Frank William Skyles applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 210 So.2d 609.

Writs refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in its judgment.
Exhibit 28 a
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Hoffman Estates, Illinois

We have audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards,
the consolidated balance sheet of Sears, Roebuck and Co. (the "Company") as
of January 3, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the fiscal year then ended, and
have issued our report thereon dated February 20, 1998, which expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to the
Company changing its method of accounting for sales of securitized accounts
receivable as required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.
125, "Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and
Extinguishments of Liabilities."

In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us
to believe that the Company failed to comply with the terms, covenants,
provisions or conditions of Sections 3.02, 4.03, 4.04, 4.05, 4.06 and 8.07
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated July 31, 1994 (as amended), by
and among the Company (as Servicer), SRFG, Inc. ("SRFG," as Seller) and The
First National Bank of Chicago (as Trustee) related to Sears Credit Account
Master Trust II, insofar as they relate to financial and accounting matters.

However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of
noncompliance with such Sections.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the board of
directors and management of the Company, SRFG and the Trustee and should not
be used for any other purpose.




February 20, 1998
Exhibit23.1 

**Consent of Independent Auditors**

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the HORIZON Pharmacies, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Planof our report dated March 31, 2000 (except for the third paragraph of Note 7(A) as to which the date is April 14, 2000), with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of HORIZONPharmacies, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

OklahomaCity, Oklahoma
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION  In connection with the
quarterly report of On the Move Systems Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2017 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Garett Parsons, President of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. SS. 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 Act of 1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  Date: April 16, 2018
    BY: /s/ Garett ParsonsGarett ParsonsPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, 
Principal Accounting Officer, Treasurer and Director  A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Samuel ST. CLAIR, Appellant, v. CITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Appellee.

No. 67-417.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

June 5, 1968.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42318-42319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18140]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR 
part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), 
hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the 
transaction of National Science Board business, as follows:

Time and Date: Closed teleconference of the Committee on Oversight of 
the National Science Board, to be held Monday, August 27, 2018 from 
4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT.

Place: This meeting will be held by teleconference at the National 
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Chair's opening remarks; discussion of FY 
2020 OIG budget request.

[[Page 42319]]


Contact Person for More Information: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Ann Bushmiller, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. 
Telephone: (703) 292-7000. You may find meeting information and updates 
(time, place, subject matter or status of meeting) at https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/notices.jsp#sunshine.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2018-18140 Filed 8-17-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
1The Honorable John R. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of

South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1653

___________

Gene Vernal Lodermeier, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Robert Dooley, Warden for the *

Springfield Correctional Facility, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 18, 1999

Filed: October 22, 1999

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gene Vernal Lodermeier challenges the district court's1 denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 motion. After a review of Lodermeier's arguments and the record, we reject all

of his contentions. Because we agree with the district court's well-reasoned opinion,

we affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Hardy V. Harrison, Respondent, *vs.*George T. Bartlett, Appellant.

1. *Practice, civil, Supreme Qoivrt*— Appeal—General *exceptions, effect of.*— A general statement at the end of a bill *of*exceptions, that to all the rulings, orders and judgments of the court the defendant excepted, is insufficient and will not be noticed by the Supreme Court. The exception must be saved to the specific ruling in the progress of the cause.

*Appeal from Butler Circuit Court.*

*E. McGinnis,*for Appellant.

*T. T. Gantt,*for Respondent.

Wagner, Judge,

delivered tbe opinion of the court.

This case was tried before the court sitting as a jury, and afte hearing the evidence the verdict was for the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered thereon. From that judgment the defendant has appealed.

We have examined the whole record and find that no exceptions were saved to the rulings of the court, and no instructions were asked for or given. There is, therefore, no point of law preserved for this court to review.

At the end of the bill of exceptions we find it stated that to all the rulings, orders and judgment of the court the defendant excepted. But this court has always held that that was not sufficient and would not be noticed.

The exception must be saved to the specific ruling in the progress of the cause. When a question of law is sought to be raised on tbe trial, instructions should always be asked for so as to enable this court to see on what theory the court below decided.

As there is no question of law before us, tbe judgment must be affirmed.

Judge Adams concurs, Judge Bliss absent.
254 La. 793

#### Frank L. SMITH v. JUNG HOTEL CORPORATION and The Travelers Insurance Company.

No. 50033.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 14, 1969.

In re: Frank L. Smith applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 224 So.2d 111.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10-4



                           THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
                     SUPPLEMENTAL LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN


The Detroit Edison Company Supplemental Long Term Disability Plan ("SLTD"),
established by the Detroit Edison Company (the "Company") effective November 5,
1991 is hereby amended and restated as of January 27, 1997.


SECTION 1 - PURPOSE

The SLTD Plan supplements on a limited basis the benefits payable under the
qualified Long Term Disability ("LTD") Plan. The SLTD Plan ensures that all
employees of Detroit Edison or a participating affiliate who become eligible to
and do receive benefits under the LTD Plan of The Detroit Edison Company will,
to the extent their base pay is not covered by the qualified plan, receive the
same dollar amount of benefits as they would have received were it not for the
limitations imposed on the maximum base pay recognized under the LTD Plan. All
of the terms set forth under the LTD Plan are applicable to the SLTD Plan.

SECTION 2 - ADMINISTRATION

The SLTD Plan shall be administered by the Director - Benefit Plan
Administration as an unfunded, unsecured plan. The Administrator's decisions
in all matters involving the interpretation and application of the SLTD Plan
shall be conclusive.

SECTION 3 - ELIGIBILITY

Employees of Detroit Edison or a participating affiliate whose benefits under
the LTD Plan are limited due to the maximum base pay recognized under that plan
shall be eligible for the benefits provided by the SLTD Plan. In no event shall
a person who is not entitled to benefits under the LTD Plan be eligible for any
benefits under the SLTD Plan.

Participating in the SLTD Plan does not guarantee continued employment with the
Company or the participating affiliate.

SECTION 4 - AMOUNT OF BENEFITS

A claim filed under the LTD Plan shall be deemed filed under the SLTD Plan when
applicable. For that portion of base pay in excess of the amount eligible for
benefits 


                                       1
<PAGE>   2
under the qualified LTD Plan, the amount of the benefit payable under the SLTD
Plan shall be determined using the formula provided under the LTD Plan.

SECTION 5 - PAYMENT OF BENEFITS

Payment of benefits under the SLTD Plan shall be made coincident with the
payment of benefits under the LTD Plan or as soon as practicable thereafter.

Benefits under the SLTD Plan shall be payable solely from the general assets of
the Company or the participating affiliate.

SECTION 6 - AMENDMENT AND DISCONTINUANCE

The Company or participating affiliate reserves the right to amend, modify,
supplement or terminate the SLTD Plan at any time.

JRM: 12-13-96

                                       2
EXHIBIT 23.1

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
Devcon International Corp. and Subsidiaries:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-32968 and No. 33-59557) on Form S-8 and (No. 33-65235) on Form S-3 of Devcon
International Corp. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 26, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Devcon International Corp. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and Comprehensive Income, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1998, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of Devcon International Corp. and
subsidiaries.




                                                            KPMG LLP



Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 30, 1999
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR
DOMINION RESOURCES BLACK WARRIOR TRUSTMarch 16, 2006
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Ron E. HooperRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President, Royalty ManagementBank of America, N.A.
Exhibit 4.1


 








 






    	 



    	 



    

 


 


  


 


 


 


 


 


 





“THE SECURITIES
REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED FOR INVESTMENT AND HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933,
AS AMENDED, OR ANY STATE SECURITIES LAW OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION (“THE ACT”). SUCH SECURITIES MAY NOT BE SOLD OR TRANSFERRED
PLEDGED, HYPOTHECATED OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED IN THE ABSENCE OF (i) AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR SUCH SECURITIES UNDER
SAID ACT OR OTHER EXEMPTIONS UNDER APPLICABLE LAW OR (ii) DELIVERY TO THE COMPANY OF AN OPINION OF COUNSEL, SATISFACTORY IN FORM
AND SUBSTANCE TO THE COMPANY, THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED.


 


THE SALE, PLEDGE, HYPOTHECATION,
ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ARTICLES
OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY, AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. COPIES OF SUCH ARTICLES MAY BE OBTAINED UPON WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE
COMPANY


 


THE SALE, PLEDGE, HYPOTHECATION,
ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE ITA RULING AND THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER E2 OF THE ISRAELI INCOME TAX ORDINANCE [NEW VERSION]- 1961. COPIES OF SUCH ITA RULING MAY BE OBTAINED UPON
WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE COMPANY”