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

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(A) OR RULE 15D-14(A)**

**OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

I, Joseph Stein, certify that:

1.          I  have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EPL Intermediate, 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; and

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)  [Paragraph omitted pursuant to  SEC Release Nos. 33-8238, 34-47986, 33-8392 and 33-8545];

  (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 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 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 the 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: May 12, 2006

/s/ Joseph Stein                    

Joseph Stein

Vice President 

EPL Intermediate, Inc.

 

----
#### In the Matter of Joseph W. Di Silvestro, Petitioner, against Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

December 9, 1958.

*William B. McDonald*for petitioner.

*Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Irving L. Rollins*of counsel), for Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, respondent.

William B. Groat, J.

Application under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act for an order in the nature of prohibition, restraining the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Queens County, from further proceeding upon an information filed by the District Attorney charging petitioner with violation of section 483 of the Penal Law, and for incidental relief.

The information was based upon the return of the Magistrate presiding in the Felony Court and his order, after hearing, holding petitioner for trial in the Court of Special Sessions. Of the several grounds urged, but two need to be here considered.

The first is that the Magistrate’s return was insufficient, for failure to make the stenographic minutes of the hearing a part thereof. The statute (Code Crim. Pro., § 221) directs that *545the Magistrate must return the *“*depositions ” to the District Attorney, but is silent about the stenographic minutes of the testimony taken at the hearing. Consequently, no duty devolves upon the Magistrate to return the minutes with the other papers mentioned in that section.

The second ground is that the District Attorney had no legal right to add a count of assault in the third degree to the information because the Magistrate’s return does not support such a charge. This ground is without merit, for the reason that the District Attorney, using the deposition and any evidence before the Magistrate as a source of information, is generally empowered to charge the defendant, in the Court of Special Sessions, with any offense disclosed thereby. *(People*v. *Frooks,*190 App. Div. 378, 383; *People*v. *Hamilton,*183 App. Div. 55, 66, affd. 230 N. Y. 577.)

Petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the Court of Special Sessions by demurrer which was overruled, and by motion which was denied, and the case has been set down for trial. All of the grounds urged by petitioner may be raised upon the trial, and any grievance founded upon adverse rulings is a proper subject for review by direct appeal from a possible judgment of conviction. Therefore, prohibition does not lie. *(People ex rel. New York Disposal Plant*v. *Freschi,*173 App. Div. 189, 191.)

It follows that the two cross motions to dismiss the petition must be, and are, granted.

Submit order on notice.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION""' OFFICE OF HEARINGS



### f''~

WASHINGTON, D.C.

In The Matter Of: PAZ AVIATION, INC, Respondent Docket No, FAA-2014-0807 Judge J,E, Sullivan
FAA Case No. 2011SOI90272

JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING PLAN Pursuant to the Judge's October 1, 2015, Order, the parties hereby submit the following proposed scheduling/discoveryplan: January 12, 2016: Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference February 5, 2016: Deadline for Initial Disclosures February 8, 2016: General Discovery Begins; parties mayinitiate written discovery; parties mayissue Notices ofDeposition March 25,2016: Deadline for initial expert disclosures March 28, 2016: Beginning ofdeposition period (expert ornon-expert) May 16,2016: Deadline to issue deposition notices and/or request subpoenas for thirdparty depositions July 8, 2016: End ofdeposition period (expert or non-expert) July 22, 2016: Deadline to issue written discovery requests; deadline for supplemental expert witness reports August 26, 2016: Close ofgeneral discovery; all discoveryresponses due by this date; remaining discovery time available onlyto resolve disputes on existing discovery
1September 30, 2016: Final Close ofDiscovery October 14, 2016: Dispositive Motion Deadline October 28,2016: Deadline to Respond to Dispositive Motions November 4, 2016: Deadline for Replies in Support ofDispositive Motions December 2016: Motion Conference onDispositive Motions January or February 2017: Pre-Hearing Conference March 3, 2017: Deadline for exchange ofwitness lists and exhibits March 24, 2017: Deadline to file written stipulations and/or motions in limine Spring 2017: Hearing**1'~--** Respectfully submitted this

# L day ofDecember, 2015,

Brandon C. Goldberg Attorney Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division, Southern Team

2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifythat the foregoing Joint Proposed Scheduling Plan was sent: original and one copyvia Federal Express to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000
one copy via Federal Express to: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 facsimile: (202) 366-7536
one copyviaFederal Express to: David M. McDonald, Esq. McDonald & McDonald Attorneys at Law 5600 NW 36 Street Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33166

# M~r;~**~~RALD** A. JE S Program Analyst 

## DEC 3-, Dated

3
February 5, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ADRIAN DESHAWN PATTON, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00101-CR 

NO. 14-14-00102-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc
(the "Company") hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

                  (i) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
      quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

      Dated: August 12, 2005                     /s/ Richard J. Naughton
                                                 _______________________________
                                                 Richard J. Naughton
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc
(the "Company") hereby certifies that, to her knowledge:

                  (i) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
      quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

      Dated: August 12, 2005                  /s/ Donna G. Lee
                                              ___________________________
                                              Donna G. Lee
                                              Chief Financial Officer
#### P.T.B., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Kenneth FONTENOT, et al., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 86-1268.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Aug. 5, 1987.

J. Harold Fontenot, Ville Platte, for defendant-appellant.

Blake Doshotels, Mamou, for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

Before LABORDE, YELVERTON and CULPEPPER, JJ.

MOTION TO REMAND

YELVERTON, Judge.

The mover-appellee, P.T.B., Inc., seeks to remand this case to the trial court in order to traverse the defendants’-appellants’ right to proceed in forma pauperis.

Judgment was rendered and signed in open court on November 17, 1986 finding the defendants, Joseph and Helen Fonte-not, liable to the plaintiff in the amount of seven hundred ninety nine and 02/100 dollars ($799.02). The defendants filed a motion and order for appeal on December 15, 1986. The same order contains a motion to proceed without giving bond or paying costs, pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. arts. 5181-5188, the forma pauperis codal articles. Subsequently, the mover filed the instant motion to remand on December 23, 1986.

Once an appeal is granted in forma pau-peris, the proper remedy to traverse the affidavits of poverty or the applicant’s right to exercise the privilege, is to timely apply to the appellate court to remand the case for that purpose. *Doyle v. Aetna Life and Casualty Co.,*309 So.2d 803 (La.App. 3 Cir.1974) and cases cited therein.

MOTION GRANTED AND CASE REMANDED.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7650]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>13056 and <greek-i>13057]


Indiana Disaster <greek-i>IN-00042

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Indiana (FEMA-
4058-DR), dated 03/22/2012.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, and Tornadoes.
    Incident Period: 02/29/2012 through 03/03/2012.
    Effective Date: 03/22/2012.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/21/2012.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/24/2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business 
Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 03/22/2012, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Clark, Jefferson, Ripley, Scott, Washington.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      3.125
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
For Economic Injury:
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13056C 
and for economic injury is 13057C.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-7650 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**Exhibit 31.2**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002I, Michael P. McGrath, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of theregistrant, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mercantile Bancorp, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: August 11, 2006   /s/ Michael P. McGrath      Michael P. McGrath  Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer  
36
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94

Federal Comparison Statement (5/25/07)
95

Detailed Statement of Facts and Circumstances (5/25/07)
96
97

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (11/2/07)
98
99
100

JAPC Letter of No Change (1/11/08)
101

Rule Certification Statement (1/18/08)
102
103
104
105
106
107

Summary of Rule (1/18/08)
108

Summary of Hearing (1/18/08)
EXHIBIT 4.2

                              [Letterhead of Dtomi]

                                 August 4, 2005

David M. Otto
The Otto Law Group, PLLC
601 Union Street, Suite 4500
Seattle, Washington 98101

         Re:  Amendment to Engagement Agreement for Payment of Fees

Dear David:

         This letter agreement memorializes the agreement by and among Dtomi,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), The Otto Law Group, PLLC ("OLG") and
David M. Otto ("Otto"), to amend that certain engagement agreement dated October
21, 2001 by and between OLG the Corporation (the "OLG Engagement Agreement").

         The Company shall issue to Otto 39,225,000 shares of the Company's
common stock (the "Shares") and register the Shares under Section 5 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, on Form S-8. OLG shall to credit the
Company, against future fees owed by the Company to OLG, the proceeds of the
sale of any of the Shares. From time to time, but at periods not exceeding three
months beginning on the date of this letter, OLG shall disclose to the Company
the amount of proceeds resulting from the sale of any or all of the Shares and
statements from OLG and/or OLG's broker disclosing the proceeds resulting from
the sale of Shares.

         If you agree to the terms and conditions of this letter agreement,
please indicate your agreement by signing in the OLG signature block below and
returning an original, signed version of this letter to me.

         I understand that you are the sole holder of securities of OLG and the
natural person that has performed substantially all of the services provided by
OLG on behalf of the Company pursuant to the OLG Engagement Agreement.


                                                     Sincerely,



                                                     John R. Haddock
                                                     Director

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

THE OTTO LAW GROUP, PLLC



By:  _______________________________
        Name:  David M. Otto
        Title:  President

Dated:  August 4, 2005


                                       5
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 09, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 09, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24A1766. ERVIN WILSON v. THE STATE.
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On July 29, 2024, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than August 08, 2024. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- Directorate Identifier:

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then ou t of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost (@$8 5 / h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection and Repair 5.0 $ 425.00 $ 

### 2100 $ 2,525.00 

### 174 $ 439,350.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of produ cts in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 439,350 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Replacement 15.0 $ 1, 275.00 

### 10,000 $ 11,275.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field c an also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibil ity Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO Explanation:

**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to i nclude specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :