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

RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION



I, Lee R. Schlesinger, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Naugatuck Valley Financial Corporation;



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 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 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 function):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weakness 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: November 12,
2004



|    |  |                                                           
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Lee R. Schlesinger                                    
|    |  | Vice President and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 14-2325

___________________________ Debra Sparks, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant , v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee .

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison

____________ Submitted: February 20, 2015 Filed: March 5, 2015 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Debra Sparks appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. For reversal, Sparks argues that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in his determination, because he failed to find that (1) her severe impairments incl uded borderline intellectual functioning and (2) her mental impairment met Listing 12.05C. Following careful review of the parties’ submissions and the record befo re us, we conclude that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes Sparks from re litigating whether her mental impairment met Listing 12.05C. See Hardy v. Chater , 64 F.3d 405, 407 (8th Cir. 1995). We further conclude that substantial evidence inthe record as a w hole supports the ALJ’s findings regarding the credibility of Sparks ’s subjective complaints, and the severity of her impairments. Accordingly, we a ffirm the district court’s judgment. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Erin L. Setser, United St ates Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2-
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ROBERT E. BALDWIN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3143 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 13, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Mark F. Carpanini, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kelly O'Neill, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
_______________________________________ __ ___________________ _________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 13, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly 131498(77) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices SUZANNE VERBRUGGHE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of George Verbrugghe, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 131498 v COA: 263686 Macomb CC: 04-004423-NH SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL – MACOMB COUNTY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and

ARSENIO V. DeLEON, M.D., and MARIUS LAURINAITIS, M.D., Defendants-Appellants, and

JAVED ZIA, M.D., Defendant.

On order of the Chief Justice, a sti pulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application is considered and the application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with pr ejudice and without costs.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 13, 2008

Clerk
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 77

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the

efforts of people of the United States of Koreanancestry to reunite with their family members inNorth Korea.

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 77

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas on June 25, 1950, North Korea invaded South

Korea, thereby initiating the Korean War, leading to the

loss of countless lives, and further polarizing a world engulfed by the Cold War;

Whereas in the aftermath of the Korean War, the division of

the Koreas at the 38th parallel separated millions of Ko-
2

•HCON 77 EH

reans from their families, tearing at the heart of every

mother, father, daughter, and son;

Whereas on June 13 and 14, 2000, in the first summit conference ever held between leaders of North and South

Korea, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung met with

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang, North

Korea’s capital;

Whereas in a historic joint declaration, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and North Korean leader Kim Jong

Il made an important promise to promote economic cooperation and hold reunions of South Korean and North

Korean citizens;

Whereas such reunions have been held in North and South

Korea since the signing of the joint declaration, reuniting

family members who had not seen or heard from each

other for more than 50 years;

Whereas 500,000 people of the United States of Korean ancestry bear the pain of being separated from their families in North Korea;

Whereas the United States values peace in the global community and has long recognized the significance of uniting

families torn apart by the tragedy of war; and

Whereas a petition drive is taking place throughout the

United States, urging the United States Government to

assist in the reunification efforts: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) the Congress and the President should sup4 port efforts to reunite people of the United States of
3

•HCON 77 EH

1 Korean ancestry with their families in North Korea;

2 and

3 (2) such efforts should be made in a timely

4 manner, as 50 years have passed since the separa5 tion of these families.

Passed the House of Representatives November 28,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
AMS Ground Beef Contractor Indicator Organism Performance - Fiscal Year: 20211/,2/

Standard PlateCount3/ Total Coliforms4/ Generic E. coli

5/

Contractor

C1

C3

# Sub-lots Produced(% 

ofTotal)

1,450 (16.8)

714 (8.3)

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

0

0

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

0

0

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

1

1

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

0.07

0.14

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

0

0

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

0

0

C4 2,298 (26.6) 0 0 0 0 0 0

C5 1,172 (13.6) 0 0 0 0 0 0

C9 2,309 (26.7) 1 0.04 0 0 0 0

C18 116 (1.3) 2 1.72 2 1.72 0 0

C20 11 (0.1) 0 0 0 0 0 0

C23 141(1.6) 1 0.71 0 0 0 0

C29 112 (1.3) 0 0 1 0.89 1 0.89

C37 322(3.7) 5 1.55 0 0 0 0

Total 8, 6 4 5 (100.0) 9 0.10 5 0.06 1 0.01

1/A full description of the ground beef purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#Beef. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021. 3/Standard Plate Count Critical Limit: 100,000 CFU/g . 4/Total Coliforms Critical Limit: 1,000 CFU/g. 5/Generic E. coli Critical Limit: 500 CFU/g.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE S 501, 514

- 516, 1001

, 1002, AND 1005, AND ADOPTING RULE 514.1 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: NO. 446

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1 9 th day of August , 20 20 , upon the recommendation of the Minor Court Rules Committee; the proposal having been published for public comment at 42 Pa.B. 7525 (December 15, 2012), 44 Pa.B. 4342 (July 12, 20 14), 47 Pa.B. 2324 (April 22, 2017), and 47 Pa.B. 7676 (December 23, 2017):

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania tha t Rule s 501, 514

- 516, 1001 , 1 002, and 1005 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure Governing Actions and Proceedings before Magisterial District Judges are amended in the attached form and Rule 514.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of C ivil Procedure Governing A ctions and P roceedings before Magisterial District Judges is adopted in the attache d form

. The rule text incorporates the amendments of the Order of August 1 9 , 20 20, Magisterial District No. 445

.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective on January 1 , 202 1

.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.
Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

November 19, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00930-CV

IN RE GARLAND MCDONALD, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14-DCV-219898

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 3, 2015, relator Garland McDonald filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable 

Annie Rebecca Elliott, Fort Bend County District Clerk, to serve the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice with his lawsuit. 
2

This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by Section 22.221 of the 

Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus 

jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court judge or a 

county court judge in the court of appeals’ district; and (2) all writs necessary to 

enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. The 

district clerk is not a district court or county court judge in this court’s district, and 

relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the requested relief is 

necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not have 

jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk.

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. We also 

deny relator’s motion to proceed informa pauperis as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, McCally, and Wise.
COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 137th District Court of Lubbock County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on August 3,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Jimmy Zavala v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-15-00285-CR Trial Court Number: 2012-433,926

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated August 3, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that this appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on October 20, 2015.

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY
AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


     AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO EMPLOYMENT  AGREEMENT  made as of the 17  day of August,
2005 by and between AEROFLEX INCORPORATED,  a Delaware corporation  (hereinafter
the "Company") and HARVEY R. BLAU (hereinafter the "Executive").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

     WHEREAS,  the Company and Executive  entered into an  Employment  Agreement
dated March 1, 1999,  as amended  subsequently  by  Amendment  Agreements  dated
September  1, 1999 and  August  13,  2001,  November  8,  2001 and May 13,  2004
(hereinafter the "Employment Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS,  the  Company  and  Executive  desire to  further  modify the said
Employment Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     1.   Paragraph 4 (a) shall be amended and restated as follows, effective as
          of the date hereof:

          "For each  Fiscal  Year  during  the  Employment  Term,  Blau shall be
          eligible to receive an annual  bonus equal to 3 percent of  Aeroflex's
          consolidated  pre-tax  earnings for such Fiscal Year computed  without
          regard to any amount due under this  Section  4(a) and without  charge
          for Acquired In-Process Research and Development and without regard to
          earnings or losses from  discontinued  operations  but with charge for
          stock-based compensation to the extent of the U. S. GAAP charge in the
          financial statements. Any such bonus payable with respect to a portion
          of a Fiscal Year shall be prorated accordingly. Blau shall be entitled
          to elect to  defer,  under  the  terms  of any  deferred  compensation
          agreement or annual incentive  compensation plan applicable to him and
          then in effect,  any  portion of his annual  bonus that is not already
          subject to deferral thereunder."


<PAGE>


     2.   Except as  specifically  provided in this  Amendment,  the  Employment
          Agreement  is in all other  respects  hereby  ratified  and  confirmed
          without amendment.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the
day and year first above written.


                                          AEROFLEX INCORPORATED

                                       By:  /s/Leonard Borow
                                          ---------------------------------
                                           Leonard Borow, Vice Chairman


                                            /s/Harvey R. Blau
                                          ---------------------------------
                                           Harvey R. Blau
**Exhibit 31.1**

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

I, Rajesh Kalathur, certify that:

​

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2022 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

​

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing, and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

​

4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

​

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

​

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association (as indenture trustee).

​

​

| Date: January 26, 2023 | By:     | */s/ Rajesh Kalathur*                       |
|------------------------|---------|---------------------------------------------|
| ​                | ​ | Rajesh Kalathur                             |
| ​                | ​ | President of John Deere Capital Corporation |
| ​                | ​ | (as Servicer)                               |

​

----
[No. 36378-6-I.

Division One.

August 19, 1996.]

#### Jan Majchrzak, *Appellant,*v. Oceantrawl, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-2-19667-7, LeRoy McCullough, J., entered March 17, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, J., concurred in by Baker, C.J., and Ellington, J.
PCA : 12-3J14-24-B-0237 

PURCHASE AWARD DESCRIPTION 

February 21, 2024 14:15:00 

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) purchased frozen vegetable products as indicated below for 

distribution 

to National School Lunch Program and other Federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Programs for Fiscal 

Year 2024. 

The purchase is the result of offers in response to Solicitation No. 2000009888 dated February 7, 2024. 

The material/materials was/were purchased on an f.o.b. destination basis. Deliveries are to be made from 

May 15, 2024 through June 30, 2024. 

Further information can be obtained from the Commodity Procurement Program, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, USDA, South Building, Washington, DC 20250, telephone (202) 720 4517 or the website at http: 

//www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food. 

Number of Offers/Quotes(Vendor Responses) received: 1 

PURCHASE SUMMARY 

Material Total Qty UOM Price Range Total Dollars 

VEG BLEND STIRFRY FRZ CTN-12/1 LB 11,520.000 CS $18.1100 - $18.1700 $ 

208,972.80 

TOTAL 11,520.000 CS $ 208,972.80 

PURCHASE DETAILS 

Contractor/ Material Plant Bid Inv. Destination Quantity UOM Price 

Contract Number Location Item 

INN FOODS INC 

310 WALKER ST 

WATSONVILLE, CA 

95076-2309 

12-3J14-24-C-1080 SALEM, OR 

4100029420 

VEG BLEND STIRFRY FRZ CTN-12/1 LB 

40 

40 

50 

60 

60 

Subtotal 

Contract Total 

Contractor Total 

Kansas City, 

MO 

Kansas City, 

MO 

Kansas City, 

MO 

Kansas City, 

MO 

Kansas City, 

MO 

 2,304.000CS $ 

18.1100 

 2,304.000CS $ 

18.1100 

 2,304.000CS $ 

18.1400 

 2,304.000CS $ 

18.1700 

 2,304.000CS $ 

18.1700 

 11,520.000CS 

 11,520.000CS $ 208,972.80 

11,520.000 CS $ 208,972.80
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 92

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Harriet Tubman should have

been paid a pension for her service as a nurse and scout in the United

States Army during the Civil War.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 29, 2001

Mr. TOWNS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that Harriet Tubman

should have been paid a pension for her service as a

nurse and scout in the United States Army during the

Civil War.

Whereas during the Civil War Harriet Tubman reported to

General David Hunter at Hilton Head, South Carolina,

with a letter from Governor John Andrews of Massachusetts allowing her to serve in the Union Army;

Whereas Harriet Tubman served at Hilton Head as a nurse,

scout, spy, and cook;

Whereas in the spring of 1865, Harriet Tubman worked at

the Freedman’s hospital in Fortress Monroe, Virginia;

Whereas Harriet Tubman’s last husband, Nelson Davis,

served in the United States Colored Infantry under Cap-
2

•HCON 92 IH

tain James S. Thompson, beginning on September 25,

1863, and was discharged on November 10, 1865;

Whereas Harriet Tubman received a pension as the spouse of

a deceased veteran;

Whereas Harriet Tubman requested a pension for her own

service in the Union Army during the Civil War, but

never received one;

Whereas a bill that passed the House of Representatives in

1897 during the 55th Congress (H.R. 4982) would have

required that Harriet Tubman be placed on the pension

roll of the United States for her service as a nurse in the

United States Army and paid a pension at the rate of

$25 each month instead of all other pensions;

Whereas some females who served in the military during the

Civil War received a pension for their service, including

Sarah Emma Edmonds Seelye and Albert Cashier, each

of whom posed as a male; and

Whereas Harriet Tubman died of pneumonia on March 10,

1913, and was buried at Fort Hill Cemetery in Auburn,

New York, with military honors: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That—

3 (1) the Congress recognizes that Harriet Tub4 man served as a nurse and scout in the United

5 States Army during the Civil War; and

6 (2) it is the sense of the Congress that Harriet

7 Tubman should have been paid a pension at the rate
3

•HCON 92 IH

1 of $25 each month for her service in the United

2 States Army.

Æ
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
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, and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 15, 2007
    /s/ Crit S. DeMentName:
    Crit S. DeMentTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner