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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2185 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of tris(4- 

isocyanatophenyl)thiophosphate and ethyl acetate and monochlorobenzene 

as solvents. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures 

of tris(4-isocyanatophenyl)thiophosphate and ethyl acetate and monochlorobenzene as solvents. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF TRIS(4- 

4 ISOCYANATOPHENYL)THIOPHOSPHATE AND 

5 ETHYL ACETATE AND 

6 MONOCHLOROBENZENE AS SOLVENTS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.17 of the Har8 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

9 mixtures of tris(4-isocyanatophenyl)thiophosphate and 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2185 IS

1 ethyl acetate and monochlorobenzene as solvents) is 

2 amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

3 2011’’. 

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

5 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

6 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

7 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Triple Crown Media, 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 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 we have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, 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 quarterly 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 controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    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.
  Signed:
    /s/ MARK G. MEIKLEMark G. MeikleExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 News
    
        Photos

    Week in Photos

    Air Force TV

    Commentaries

    Features

    Art

    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders
    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Fact Sheets

    SECAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library
    
        CSAF Leadership Library 2022

    CSAF Leadership Library 2021

    CSAF Reading List Pre-2020 Archive
    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    CSAF Leadership Library 2023

    CMSAF Leadership Library

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    Adjunct Professors

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Arctic Strategy

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    Careers

    AF Federal Advisory Committees

    AF 75th Anniversary

    Policy Updates

    AF Content Management

    Contact Us

    AF Sites
    
        Site RegistrationU.S. Air Force LogoAir Force

        Policy UpdatesNewsroomReoptimizationBIOGRAPHIESAF Senior Leaders

    HomeNewsCommentaries     Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians
        
            Commentaries
 Keyword
 Type Select a CategoryTop StoriesMission/TrainingFeaturesSecretary of the AFAF Chief of StaffChief Master Sgt. of the AFCommentariesSequestration NewsSpace/TechnologyHumanitarianAFSO 21Women's History Month 1-15EnvironmentalWarrior CareDiversityDignified TransferSafetyHeritageAir Force FamilyPersonnel MattersCommander's Call TopicsHaiti Earthquake ReliefDon't Ask Don't TellSuicide PreventionWarrior GamesEnergyAircraftEtchbergerSexual AssaultOperation TomodachiOperation Odyssey Dawn2011 Appropriations InformationHurricane Irene9/11AFAWeek in PhotosThrough Airmen's EyesThrough AIrmen's Eyes FeaturesThrough Their Words2012 Appropriations InformationAfrican American History MonthAfrican American Heritage Month 1-15African American Heritage Month 16-29Fiscal Year BudgetAir Force StoriesColorado WildfireChief of Staff ArchiveHurricane IsaacAFA 2012APP RSSAPP Airman VisualsExpeditionary OperationsHurricane SandyTransition GPSAir Force in SpaceSports/RecreationH1N1Women's History Month 16-30Oklahoma Tornado ReliefMemorial DayCOVID-19 CommentariesCOVID-19
 RecentOldestTitle A > ZTitle Z > A
 Sept. 16, 2014Look past 1947 for Air Force roots
        Maybe it's a genetic thing I share with them, but I agree that Air Force history predates Sept. 18, 1947, and think we should do a better job of recognizing that. The problem is, of course, what to use as a starting date for such remembrances?  Quick Links
AccessibilityContact UsEqual OpportunityFOIA | Privacy | Section 508Information QualityInspector GeneralJAG Court-Martial DocketLink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentOSI Tip LinePlain LanguageQuestionsResilienceRSSSite MapVeterans Crisis LineCareers
Join the Air ForceAir Force BenefitsAir Force CareersAir Force ReserveAir National GuardCivilian ServiceConnect
            Get Social with Us
            
            Official United States Air Force Website
    Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220( b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Issues 1 through 13: Where an appellant fails to provide arguments or supporting authority with regard to an issue on appeal, the issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal. First Sav. Bank v. McLean , 314 S.C. 361, 444 S. E.2d 513 (1994); Wright v. Craft , 372 S.C. 1, 640 S.E.2d 486 (Ct. THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

Shirley Hammer, Respondent,

v.

Howard Hammer, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-203087

Appeal From Richland County John M. Rucker, Family Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-004 Submitted February 5, 2013 – Filed February 13, 2013

AFFIRMED

Howard Hammer of Columbia, Pro Se Appellant.

Timothy E. Madden of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Greenville, for Respondent.App. 2006); Arnal v. Arnal , 363 S.C. 268, 609 S.E. 2d 821 (Ct. App. 2005), aff’d as modified 371 S.C. 10, 636 S.E.2d 864 (2006); Ellie, Inc. v. Miccichi , 358 S.C. 78, 594 S.E.2d 485 (Ct. App. 2004); Fields v. Fields , 342 S.C. 182, 536 S.E.2d 684 (Ct. App. 2000). An issue is also deemed abandoned if the argument in the brief is not supported by authority or is only conclusory. State v. Jones , 344 S.C. 48, 543 S.E.2d 541 (2001); Butler v. Butler , 385 S.C. 328, 684 S.E.2d 191 (Ct. App. 2009);
State v. Howard , 384 S.C. 213, 682 S.E. 2d 42 (Ct. App. 2009); Pack v. S.C. Dept. of Transp. , 381 S.C. 526, 673 S.E.2d 461 (Ct. App. 2009); Bryson v. Bryson , 378 S.C. 502, 662 S.E.2d 611 (Ct. App. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,

concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. . IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10161 Conference Calendar

JAMES D. BOSWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WILLIAM COHEN, The Secretary of Defense; ET AL.,

Defendants, TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY; WILLIAM E. TUCKER, DR., Chancellor; MICHAEL D. McCRACKEN, Dean, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CV-168-Y

-------------------- December 16, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal is a prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by this court. United States v. Carr , 979 F.2d 51, 55 (5th Cir. 1992). A petitioner has 60 days fromNo. 99-10161 -2- the entry of judgment to appeal from the dismissal of a civil action in which the Government, its agencies, or officers are parties. F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(1). “A document filed in the period prescribed by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) for taking an appeal should be construed as a notice of appeal if the document ‘clearly evinces the party’s intent to appeal.’” Mosley , 813 F.2d at 660. A pleading that seeks reconsideration of an order of the district court is not effective as a notice of appeal, even if labeled a notice of appeal. Id

. In his notice of appeal and accompanying memorandum, James Boswell requested that the district court compel discovery, vacate the order denying him an extra day to respond to the defendants’ summary judgment motion, and schedule a hearing on the summary judgment motion. Boswell’s notice of appeal did not clearly evince his intent to appeal, and Boswell filed no pleading subsequent to his notice of appeal that could be construed as a notice of appeal. We lack jurisdiction over Boswell’s appeal. Finally, Boswell’s motion to supplement his reply brief with an appendix is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 35.5[Regulus Letterhead]Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Item 1123Pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, a review of the Regulus’ activities during the year endedDecember 31 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the servicingagreement between Regulus and American Express (the “Servicing Agreement”) has been madeunder the undersigned officer’s supervision. To the best of such officer’s knowledge, based onsuch review, Regulus has fulfilled its obligations under the Servicing agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period.   /s/ Kimberlee Clark  Kimberlee Clark  Chief Financial Officer  February 22, 2007
# L_2007018EN.01001103.xml

| 25.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 18/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 18/11

---

Corrigendum to Regulation 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 399 of 30 December 2006
  )

On page 14, in box 7 of the Annex, the last three entries in the table should read as follows, in English:

| ‘ID * | Code | Interest rate (%) | % over base rate (ECB) | on (amount) | Starting from | to |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ID * | Code | Interest rate (%) | % over base rate (ECB) | on (amount) | Starting from | to |
| ID * | Code | Interest rate (%) | % over base rate (ECB) | on (amount) | Starting from | to’ |

‘ID *

Code

Interest rate (%)

% over base rate (ECB)

on (amount)

Starting from

to

ID *

Code

Interest rate (%)

% over base rate (ECB)

on (amount)

Starting from

to

ID *

Code

Interest rate (%)

% over base rate (ECB)

on (amount)

Starting from

to’

---
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 13-1247

_____________

UNITED INDUSTRIAL, SERVICE, TRANSPORTATION,

PROFESSIONAL AND GOVERNMENT WORKERS

OF NORTH AMERICA SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL 

UNION, ON BEHALF OF ERNEST BASON,

 

Petitioner

v.

GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

_______________

On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court

of the Virgin Islands

(V.I. S. Ct. Civ. No.: 2011-0115)

_______________

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

_______________

BEFORE: FISHER, COWEN and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

The Petition for Rehearing filed by Petitioner in the above-entitled case having 

been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing by the panel is granted. The 

Opinion and Judgment filed on March 19, 2014, and amended on March 21, 2014, is 
hereby VACATED.

BY THE COURT,

s/ Robert E. Cowen

Circuit Judge

Dated: May 23, 2014
#### Farrell CASANOVA, et al. v. Ann BALLARD, et al.

No. 88-C-3144.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1989.

In re Louisiana Power & Light Co.;—Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA87 0788; Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court, Div. “F", No. 71592.

Denied.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, Robert J. Cox, certify that:     (1) I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DealerTrack Holdings, Inc.;     (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     (5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors:     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ Robert J. Cox III   Robert J. Cox III  Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer     May 9, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             920
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,378
<INVENTORY>                                     52,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,737
<PP&E>                                          85,490
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,551
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,576
<BONDS>                                         33,917
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,266
<SALES>                                        264,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               264,095
<CGS>                                          202,268
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  202,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,090
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,999
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,120
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,420
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,420
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2260 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2260

       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Flumioxasin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Flumioxasin.

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

SECTION 1. FLUMIOXASIN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.69 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20999

ARMANDO QUINTERO RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General; DORIS MEISSNER, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Service,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-1835)

April 13, 1999

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Armando Quintero Ramirez (Ramirez) brought

this action against the Immigr ation and Naturalization Service

(INS) challenging its denial of his application for Temporary

Residence as a Special Agricultural Worker. Ramirez is not subject2

to any deportation or similar order. This suit is not brought as

a putative class action and there is no party plaintiff other than

Ramirez individually. The district court granted the INS’s motion

to dismiss and entered judgment dismissing the case for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. Ramirez appeals.

After considering the record, briefs, and argument of counsel,

and being essentially in agreement with the reasons orally given by

the district court at the heari ng on the motion to dismiss, we

conclude that the district court’s judgment is correct and it is

accordingly

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed 
Registration Statement File No. 333-66665 on Form S-8, Registration Statement 
File No. 333-01718 on Form S-8, Registration Statement File 333-23575 on Form 
S-3, and Registration Statement File No. 333-40167 on Form S-3


                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Chicago, Illinois 
April 1, 1999