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

 

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Francis E. Dunne, Jr., certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of September 30, 2003 of Benthos, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation; 

 

2    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement 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; 

 

5.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

6.    The small business issuer’s other certifying officer andI 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 small business issuer 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 to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this report is being prepared; 

 

b.    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures asof the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c.    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the most recent fiscal quarter that has materially effected or isreasonably likely to materially effect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting: and 

 

5.    The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors: 

 

a.    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lincoln Park Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Donald S. Hom, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with this quarterly report on Form
10-QSB, that I have reviewed the Form 10-QSB and that to the best of my
knowledge:

(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/ Donald S. Hom
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Donald S. Hom
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                        Financial Officer)


November 14, 2005
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Danny Mendelson, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Wise Metals Group LLC; 

 

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 suchstatements 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 theregistrant 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, orcaused 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 endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter 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 internalcontrol 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 overfinancial 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 significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 16, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9530]


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

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


Privacy Act; Termination of Three Systems of Records

AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is terminating the 
following Systems of Records: MSPB/Internal 5, ``Workload and 
Assignment Tracking System;'' MSPB/Internal 7, ``Administrative Data 
System;'' and MSPB/Central 1, ``Assignment and Correspondence Tracking 
System.'' They are no longer in use.

DATES: Effective April 6, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darryl Aaron, Director of Information 
Services, Office of the Clerk of the Board, 1615 M Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20419; (202) 254-4474; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a3e1b08080316543b1b0815143a17090a18541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c783a6b5b5beabe986a6b5a8a987aab4b7a5e9a0a8b1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy 
Act of 1974, this notice formally terminates the following systems of 
records: MSPB/Internal 5, ``Workload and Assignment Tracking System;'' 
MSPB/Internal 7, ``Administrative Data System;'' and MSPB/Central 1, 
``Assignment and Correspondence Tracking System.''

William Spencer,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-9530 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered February 17, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00110-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.J., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JC-21-00655-X

ORDER

Before the Court is the February 15, 2023 request of Arturo Neria, Jr., 

Official Court Reporter for the 305th Judicial District Court, for an extension of 

time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and extend the deadline 

to February 27, 2023. We caution Mr. Neria that further extension requests in this 

accelerated appeal involving the termination of appellant’s parental rights will be 

disfavored.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member ofATEL Capital Equipment Fund XI, LLC (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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: November 21, 2005   /s/ Paritosh K. Choksi   Paritosh K. Choksi  Executive Vice President of Managing Member,  Principal Financial Officer of Registrant  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.
19
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7706

RANDY WAY POINDEXTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIE WELDON, Warden for Lieber Correctional

Institution; ANNIE NEGLEY, Lieutenant for

Lieber Correctional Institution; L. J. ALLEN,

Regional Director,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-935-6-13AK)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Wayne Poindexter, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Duncan,

LEWIS, ROGERS & LARK, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Raymon E.

Lark, Jr., BELSER, LEWIS, ROGERS & LARK, P.A., Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Poindexter v. Weldon, No. CA-97-935-6-13AK (D.S.C. Nov. 12,

1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

KAHYAN HARRIS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 523 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 23







INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statement  Nos.
2-54345,  2-63803,  2-75715, 2-88474, 2-96491, 33-32465 and 33-57537 on Form S-8
and in  Registration  Statement Nos.  33-55136,  33-53817,  33-57325,  33-59784,
333-631,  333-63441,  333-65901  and  333-68751  on Form S-3 of our report dated
October  30,  1998,  appearing  in this  Annual  Report  on Form  10-K of Bergen
Brunswig Corporation for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1998.




/s/    Deloitte & Touche LLP
       Costa Mesa, California
       December 28, 1998















                                EXH 23 - Page 1
* The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-3137MN

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Leslie Kay Matter, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: March 11, 1999

Filed: March 18, 1999

_____________ Before FAGG and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges, and WEBBER, * District Judge.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Leslie Kay Matter appeals the district court's denial of her motions to suppress drugs that were seized in a warrantless Nevada-based search of her luggage and in a Minnesotawarrant-based search of her residence. Having reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude that an extensive discussion is not warranted inthis fact-intensive case. We are satisfied the district court's fact-findings are not clearly erroneous and the district court correctly applied the controlling law. Finding no error of fact or law by the district court, we affirm the denial of Matter's motions-2-

to suppress on the basis of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation adopted by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
From: William Charmley/AA/USEPA/US

To: "Achanta, Chandana L." <Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: rebecca.yoon@dot.gov, james.tamm@dot.gov, Steve.Wood@dot.gov, Maureen

Delaney/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Robin Moran/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/30/2010 02:41 PM

Subject: Revised LD NOI and TAR responding to all outstanding interagency comments

Chandana

-

The attached are redline/strikeout compared to last night's versions which Jim Tamm sent you.

With these documents EPA and NHTSA have responded to all outstanding interagency comments.

Please let us know ASAP if these are okay, and both agencies will load into ROCIS clean copies.

Please give Jim or I a call if there are any issues.

thanks

Bill
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0577. HAROLD JAMES MANTOOTH v. THE STATE.

Harold James Mantooth pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine and

driving under the influence of drugs. He was sentenced to seven years on the

possession charge and 12 months on the driving-under-the-influence charge. After

service of 12 months, however, the balance of the sentence was to be served on

probation.

On March 26, 2014, the trial court entered an order revoking Mantooth’s

probation based upon his violation of conditions of probation. Specifically, the court

found that Mantooth possessed a firearm and possessed a controlled substance while

an inmate. The court thus ordered Mantooth to serve four years and ten months.

Mantooth filed a “Motion to Vacate Void Sentence,” alleging that the trial

court was not authorized to revoke his probation based upon conditions of probation

that were not entered at his originalsentencing.

1 The trial court denied the motion on

the basis that all conditions of probation were set forth at the time of sentencing.

Mantooth appeals this ruling.

2

 We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Although Mantooth filed a motion to vacate a void sentence, in substance he

1 Mantooth apparently failed to recognize that the originalsentencing sheet had

a reverse side that listed the conditions of probation.

2 An appeal may lie from an order denying a motion to correct a void sentence

if the defendant raises a colorable claim that the sentence is, in fact, void or illegal.

See Harper v. State, 286 Ga. 216, 216 n.1 (686 SE2d 786) (2009); Burg v. State, 297

Ga. App. 118, 119 (676 SE2d 465) (2009).

April 01, 2015
challenges the revocation of his probation. And it is the substance of the motion

rather than its nomenclature that controls.

3

In order to appeal the revocation of his

probation, Mantooth wasrequired to file an application for discretionary appeal.

4 His

failure to comply with the discretionary appeal procedure deprives this court of

jurisdiction to consider his appeal, which is therefore DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

3

See Kuriatnyk v. Kuriatnyk, 286 Ga. 589, 590 (690 SE2d 397) (2010) (holding

that, in pleadings, substance controls over nomenclature).

4

See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5); Freeman v. State, 245 Ga. App. 333, 333 (537

SE2d 763) (2000); Zamora v. State, 226 Ga. App. 105, 105 (485 SE2d 214) (1997). 

04/01/2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7575

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

LIONEL BLACKMON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00091-HCM-TEM-1; 4:13-cv-00153-

HCM)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: April 6, 2015

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lionel Blackmon, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley Daniel Price, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lionel Blackmon seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Blackmon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00379-CR

TRACI SHEPPARD SCHROEDER

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

Criminal District Court 3 of Dallas County of Dallas County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F12-34983-J

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by 

this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED AND 

REMANDED IN PART AND AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 9, 2015
Table 2. Feed Rate Data & Exhaust Data From Veolia's March 2010 ApplicationUpdated: 6/1/2012Unit #Test Run#Hg Feed Rate(lb/hr)aLVM FeedRate(lb/hr)SVM FeedRate(lb/hr)Stackflow(dscfm)Oxygen (%dry)RemovalEfficiency(RE) for Hg(%)RE for LVM(%)RE forSVM (%)1 0.0023 46.82 62.065496 11.72 65.61 99.99973 99.999362 0.0017 46.52 63.465572 11.54 51.65 99.99991 99.999773 0.0016 47.17 63.275357 11.3 50.06 99.99979 99.99952Average 0.0017 46.84 62.93 5475 11.52 55.5099.99981 99.999551 0.0016 47.71 64.075665 11.99 53.25 99.99919 99.998752 0.0022 47.31 655719 10.96 57.36 99.99935 99.998423 0.0018 48.01 63.785890 11.98 54.56 99.99936 99.99897Average 0.0018 47.68 64.28 5758 11.64 54.4799.99930 99.998711 0.0257 50.61 63.5117280 12.27 94.05 99.99958 99.998582 0.026 50.65 63.4517255 12.13 96.17 99.99916 99.997953 0.0264 49.79 64.0117189 11.63 95.91 99.99882 99.99819Average 0.0214 50.35 63.66 17241 12.01 95.3099.99919 99.99824Table 3. Estimated Stack Concentrations at Proposed OPLsUnit # MetalVeolia’s3/2/10ProposedExtrapolatedOPLs(lb/hr)EPA’sProposedOPLs(lb/hr)Est.StackConc. @Veolia'sProposedOPLs(μg/dscm@ 7% O2)Est.StackConc. @EPA'sProposedOPLs(μg/dscm@ 7% O2)HWC MACTLimit (40C.F.R. §63.1219);μg/dscm @7% O2Hg0.0057 0.00165 183 53 130LVM140 68.4687214 20 10 92SVM189 90.9824796 65 31 230Hg0.0057 0.0018 181 57 130LVM143 77.8169429 70 38 92SVM193 81.5946987 173 73 230Hg0.078 0.0214 89 24 130LVM151 77.2880386 30 15 92SVM191 98.128117 81 42 230234234Table 4. Unit #2 Stack Parameters Measured in September 2008bTestRun #Stackflow(dscfm) % Oxygen (dry)14698 11.2125099 10.9135248 11.35Average 5015 11.16a. Hg average feed rates & REs were calculated by EPA (Todd Ramaly, March 26, 2010).b. Used for LVM & SVM calculations. August 2008 data for Unit # 2 were used for Hg