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



Certification



I, Joseph Stein, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of El Pollo Loco, Inc. (the Company);



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



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



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



(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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



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



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in
the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over
financial reporting; and



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



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



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



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                     |  |                                     
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: August 4, 2004 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    Joseph Stein
|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                     |  | Joseph Stein Chief Financial
Officer
#### Michelle Mae HOLMAN, Appellant, v. GUARDIANSHIP OF Gertrude FERBER, Incompetent, Appellee.

No. 87-2652.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 26, 1988.

*988Kreeger & Kreeger and Judith Kreeger, Miami, for appellant.

Horton, Perse *&*Ginsberg and Mallory Horton, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a guardianship proceeding from a trial court order awarding a guardian’s fee for services rendered by the guardian to the ward. The guardian Michelle Mae Holman brings this appeal and contends that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding an inadequate fee for services rendered to the ward in the year 1986. We entirely agree and reverse.

The undisputed evidence adduced below, by way of detailed affidavits, establishes that Ms. Holman rendered 215 hours of valuable services as guardian of the person of the ward and twenty-eight (28) hours of valuable services as guardian of the property of the ward; moreover, it was shown that the hourly rate established by the court for the guardian’s services in past years was a minimal rate of $35.00 per hour. The trial court gave no explanation below as to why it concluded in the order under review (1) that the guardian performed only 165 hours of valuable service for the ward in 1986 — rather than the 243 hours detailed in the aforesaid affidavits, and (2) that the guardian was only entitled to $10.00 per hour for services rendered, rather than the $35.00 per hour as established by the court in past years; moreover, no reason otherwise appears in the record which would justify these two conclusions. *See Lucom v. Atlantic Nat’l Bank,*97 So.2d 478, 481 (Fla.1957); *In re Guardianship of Berg,*348 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); § 744.108, Fla.Stat. (1985); *see also Gamse v. Touby,*382 So.2d 115, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); *cf. March v. March,*395 So.2d 200 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (fee awarded attorney reversed where inadequate under record evidence); *Marchion Terrazzo, Inc. v. Altman,*372 So.2d 512, 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same).

The order under review is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the guardian’s application for fees in the amount requested by the guardian in the said application.

Reversed and remanded.
July 9 , 2015

Mr. Christopher Wiegand

6815 Pemberton Drive

Dallas, TX 75230

Dear Mr. Wiegand :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explain s why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your July 1 st 2015 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

-

2677 ), but we are unable to process your request an y further. The information you sent does

no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relie f, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safe ty or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemptio n.

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program An alyst

, Airmen and

Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Queens Vending Corporation, Plaintiff, *v.*City of New York et al., Defendants. 

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

July 30, 1935.

*Albert Ross*for plaintiff.

*■Paul Windels, Corporation*Counsel, for defendants.

Edgar J. Lauer, J.

Plaintiff, a vendor of gum .sold to the public through the medium of vending machines for the price of one cent for each piece of gum, seeks to enjoin the Comptroller of the City of New York from collecting the taxes under Local Law No. 24 of the City of New York for 1934, known as the Sales Tax. I can see no valid basis for interfering with the defendant in the collection of the tax. The plaintiff contends that if it is to pay the tax it would be necessary for it to violate the law because the law forbids a person selling property or service subject to the tax to absorb the tax. It would seem that the plaintiff misinterprets the provisions of the law. Section 3, which authorizes the Comptroller to prescribe regulations for a method or schedule as to the amounts to be collected from the purchasers also provides *“*such schedule or .schedules may provide that no tax need be collected from the purchaser upon receipts below a stated sum.” Plaintiff also contends that it is discriminated against, but this does not appear .to be the fact, as everybody who sells articles for twelve cents or under is in the same position as the plaintiff. The mere fact that the plaintiff specializes in the sale of articles for one cent does not make the method of collection a discrimination against the plaintiff where as here everybody is in the same position with regard to the sale of articles below twelve cents. There is no discrimination within the plaintiff’s classification.

Plaintiff’s application is without merit and must be denied.
EXHIBIT 10.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-12254 and 333-10668 of Repsol YPF, S.A. on
Form F-3 of our report dated March 3, 2004, except for Note 27, as to which the date is June 30, 2004, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 20-F of Repsol YPF, S.A. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE ESPAÑA, S.L.

DELOITTE &
TOUCHE ESPAÑA, S.L.

Madrid,
Spain
June 30, 2004

---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit
        21.1**
 
 **Subsidiaries
        of the Registrant**
 
 **Allion
        Healthcare, Inc. and Subsidiaries:**
 
 Allion
        Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware corporation
 
 Moms
        Pharmacy, Inc., a California corporation
 
 Medicine
        Made Easy, a California corporation
 d/b/a:
        MOMS Pharmacy; Priority Pharmacy
 
 Moms
        Pharmacy, Inc., a New York corporation
 
 Moms
        Pharmacy, LLC, a Florida limited liability company
 d/b/a:
        MOMS Specialty Care Pharmacy
 
 North
        American Home Health Supply, Inc., a California corporation
 
 Specialty
        Pharmacies, Inc., a Washington corporation
 d/b/a:
        Castro Street Pharmacy; Cherry Street Pharmacy; Castro and Duboce
        Pharmacy
 
 Oris
        Health, Inc., a California corporation
 d/b/a:
        Oris Medical Systems
 
 Moms
        Pharmacy of Brooklyn, Inc., a New York corporation
 d/b/a:
        Maiman’s Pharmacy
#### Kevin GARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-846.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 11, 1988.

*370James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Brad Permar, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

LEHAN, Judge.

Defendant, a juvenile at the time of sentencing, appeals from his sentence, contending that the trial court erred in sentencing defendant as an adult. We affirm.

We do not find merit in defendant’s argument that the trial court could not delegate to the prosecutor the task of writing the sentencing order pursuant to findings specifically made by the trial court. *Carnegie v. State,*473 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), is clearly distinguishable. In that case the trial court had apparently given the prosecutor carte blanche authority to prepare the written reasons for departure.

We also do not find merit in defendant’s argument that defendant’s juvenile record of offenses committed within the previous three years should not have been scored because such scoring should only be permitted for adults. When a defendant is sentenced as an adult, he is subject to the criteria for adult sentencing. Similarly, we do not find merit in defendant’s argument that an appellate court has the authority to reverse, as too harsh, a sentence imposed within the guidelines recommended range upon a juvenile who is sentenced as an adult. Finally, we do not find merit in defendant’s argument that the trial court failed to consider the criteria for sentencing a juvenile as an adult pursuant to section 39.111(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). The record reflects that the trial court did consider those criteria, and, whether or not we would have applied each of those criteria as did the trial court, there was no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

SCHEB, Acting C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
#### Thecia BROWN, Appellant, v. The CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, and its Servants, Agents and Employees, Including, but not Limited to, Officer W. Citty, and W. Citty and Others, Individually.

No. 61122.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 10, 1986.

ORDER

Certiorari granted for the limited purpose of striking from the majority opinion, 721 P.2d 1346, the last paragraph in part III thereof. The case is remanded to the District Court for trial by jury on its merits. In all other respects petition for certio-rari is denied.

SIMMS, C.J., DOOLIN, V.C.J., and HAR-GRAVE, OPALA, WILSON, KAUGER and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.

HODGES and LAVENDER, JJ., dissent and would grant certiorari to review the Court of Appeals opinion in its entirety.
----

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ L. Paul Latham                             |
|------------------------------------------------|
| L. Paul Latham                                 |
| President and Chief Executive Officer          |
| of Southwest Royalties, Inc., the              |
| Managing General Partner of                    |
| Southwest Oil & Gas Income Fund IX-A, L.P. |
|                                           |
| March 31, 2010                                 |
|                                           |
|                                           |
| /s/ Mel G. Riggs                               |
| Mel G. Riggs                                   |
| Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of  |
| Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                 |
| Managing General Partner of                    |
| Southwest Oil & Gas Income Fund IX-A, L.P. |
|                                           |
| March 31, 2010                                 |
#### R-N CONCRETE SERVICES, INC. v. NEW ORLEANS EAST REALTY COMPANY, INC. et al.

No. 86-CC-2526.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re First Federal Sav./Arkansas FA; applying for supervisory writs; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “A”, No. 84-17332; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. C-6776.

Denied.

COLE, J., would grant the writ.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 243 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 243

  Notifying the House that the Senate is ready to proceed to business.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2000

 Mr. Lott submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Notifying the House that the Senate is ready to proceed to business.

    Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of Representatives 
that a quorum of the Senate is assembled and that the Senate is ready 
to proceed to business.
                                 <all>
```
|Exhibit 32.2
|------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Energy Corporation a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), WuSheng Liu, Chief Accounting Officer and Secretary of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and(2)
     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




|/s/ WuSheng LiuWuSheng LiuChief Accounting OfficerDated: October 15, 2007
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
# Iris Oifigiúil C 70I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-107X |
| --- | --- |
| Iris Oifigiúil
  an Aontais Eorpaigh | C 070I |
| | |
| An t-eagrán Gaeilge | Faisnéis agus Fógraí | 634 Márta 2020 |

ISSN 1977-107X

Iris Oifigiúil

an Aontais Eorpaigh

C 070I

An t-eagrán Gaeilge

Faisnéis agus Fógraí

634 Márta 2020

---

| Clár | Leathanach |
| --- | --- |
| | Ceartúchán |
| | Ceartúchán ar Fhógra Folúntais PE/242/S — Stiúrthóir (BEAN/FEAR) (Grúpa Feidhme AD, grád 14) — An Ard-Stiúrthóireacht um Nuálaíocht agus um Thacaíocht Theicniúil — An Stiúrthóireacht um Fhoilsitheoireacht, um Nuálaíocht agus um Bainistíocht Sonraí ( IO C 065A, 28.2.2020 ) | 1 |

Clár

Leathanach

Ceartúchán

Ceartúchán ar Fhógra Folúntais PE/242/S — Stiúrthóir (BEAN/FEAR) (Grúpa Feidhme AD, grád 14) — An Ard-Stiúrthóireacht um Nuálaíocht agus um Thacaíocht Theicniúil — An Stiúrthóireacht um Fhoilsitheoireacht, um Nuálaíocht agus um Bainistíocht Sonraí ( IO C 065A, 28.2.2020 )

( IO C 065A, 28.2.2020 )

1

---

| GA | |
| --- | --- |

GA

---

Ceartúchán

| 4.3.2020 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | CI 70/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2020

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

CI 70/1

---

Ceartúchán ar Fhógra Folúntais PE/242/S — Stiúrthóir (BEAN/FEAR) (Grúpa Feidhme AD, grád 14) — An Ard-Stiúrthóireacht um Nuálaíocht agus um Thacaíocht Theicniúil — An Stiúrthóireacht um Fhoilsitheoireacht, um Nuálaíocht agus um Bainistíocht Sonraí

(
  Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh C 65 A Eagrán Speisialta Gaeilge an 28 Feabhra 2020
  )

(2020/C 70 I/01)

Leathanach 57, pointe 2. “Áit oibre”:

in ionad:

“Lucsamburg.”

léitear:

“An Bhruiséil.”

---
#### Terry Leon TAYLOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-0048.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 12, 1988.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Craig S. Barnard, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Alfonso M. Saldana, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell and sale of cocaine, and sentenced to two concurrent sentences of four and one-half years’ imprisonment, followed by five years’ probation. The convictions and sentences arose out of the single act of possession and sale of the identical quantity of the contraband substance. Under such circumstances only one conviction and sentence is appropriate *Carawan v. State,*515 So.2d 161 (Fla.1987); *Smith v. State,*524 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).

Accordingly, the conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to sell is reversed and the conviction of sale of cocaine is affirmed and the cause is remanded for resentencing on the latter conviction.

DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Jessie Louis Johnson v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00 970

- CR & 01

- 18

- 00971

- CR

Trial court case number: 1411855 & 1411854

Trial court: 180th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s brief in these two appeals was originally due on February 19, 2019. One motion for extension was filed in April. Late notice issued in May, but no brief or further request

for extension was filed.

On Augus t 22, 2019, this Court abated the appeal and remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine why no brief had been filed. The trial court held a hearing on September 17, 2019 and appointed counsel, Kevin Keating attended. Counsel stated that appella nt did wish to continue his appeal. Counsel further explained that he was waiting on a record, but our records show that there was no record missing. The clerk’s record was filed in December 2018 and the last volumes of reporter’s record were filed in Jan uary 2019. Counsel next stated that he was in the hospital when this Court’s abatement order issued. Counsel further stated that his “return to work authorization” from his doctor said that he should do light duty. Counsel did not explain why

he had not ad vised this Court of any of these excuses, or why he had not filed any motions for extension or a brief after he received this Court’s notice in late May 2019.

The trial court permitted counsel to have an extension of 15 days from the date of the hearing. Accordingly, the appeal is reinstated on the active docket and appellant’s brief is due on or before October 17 , 2019. No further extensions will be considered

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Richard Hight ower

____  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ September 26, 2019

___
Exhibit 99.4

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

In connection with the report of Synerteck Incorporated. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB including financial statements for the period ending June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Periodic Reports"), I, Chene Gardner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Periodic Reports fully comply with the requirements of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Periodic Reports fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 15, 2004
                                     By       /s/ Chene Gardner
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                          Chene Gardner
                                          Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2
 
 
 
 
 Certification of Principal Accounting
Officer Pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
 
 
 In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Rotoblock Corporation
(Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Richard Di Stefano, Principal Accounting Officer, hereby
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 and
belief:
 
 (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 operations of Registrant.
 
 
 Date: December
12,
2008 ROTOBLOCK
CORPORATION
 
 /s/ 
Richard Di Stefano
 By:
Richard Di Stefano, Chief Financial Officer/Principal Accounting Officer