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

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

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

I, Kenneth Stastny, certify that: 

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

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; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe 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 oursupervision, 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 reportour 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 theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter covered by this report (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’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent 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 arereasonably 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: August 14, 2007
# C_2004106EN.01004502.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/45

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 16 January 2004 in the case Ministère public against

(Case C-151/04)

(2004/C 106/78)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Police (local criminal court), Neufchâteau (Belgium) of 16 January 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 25 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère public against Claude Nadin - third party to the proceedings: Nadin-Lux SA.

The Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:

Do Articles 10, 39, 43 and 49 of the EEC Treaty preclude a Member State from adopting a measure requiring a worker who is resident within its territory to register his vehicle there even when that vehicle belongs to his employer, a company established in another Member State and to which that worker is linked by an employment contract but in which at the same time he occupies a the position of shareholder, director, day-to-day manager or similar?

---
Office of the Secretary

Washington, DC 20250

An Equal Opportunity Employer

March 14, 2024 

MR. ZIPPY DUVALL

President

American Farm Bureau Federation 

600 Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 1000W 

Washington, DC 20024

Dear President Duvall, 

I write in response to your letter dated February 22, 2024, cosigned by Rob Larew, President, 

National Farmers Union, requesting the Class I Mover utilized in the Federal Milk Marketing 

Orders be adjusted as soon as possible to stabilize prices for dairy farmers. 

I recognized the ongoing importance to the industry of the Class I mover, when the Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) announced the FMMO national price formula hearing last year and 

USDA specifically included this issue in the rulemaking scope. Continuing to work through the 

current national hearing process and our established regulations is the most appropriate means 

available to resolve this issue. As I’ve noted on several occasions, Federal Milk Marketing 

Orders issues are complex and small changes can create unintended consequences if not 

carefully and thoroughly considered. Since the Class I mover is not the only issue impacting 

dairy farmers today, the national price formula rulemaking proceeding is allowing all parties to 

publicly share their viewpoints and evidence to USDA on a variety of key price formula issues. 

Utilizing this transparent process, we’ve received nearly 12,000 pages of testimony which is 

being analyzed to prepare a recommended decision that will be available for public comment 

later this year. 

Due to regulations at 7 CFR 900.16, USDA cannot make any further comment prior to issuance 

of the recommended decision on this proposal as it would be considered an ex parte 

communication. Your letter and this response will be placed on the public record of the 

proceeding and posted on the National Federal Milk Marketing Order Pricing Formula Hearing

website. 
MR. ZIPPY DUVALL

Page 2

In the meantime, we remain fully committed to supporting dairy farmers. In February, sign up 

opened for this year’s Dairy Margin Coverage program. We are providing producers with new 

revenue streams through our Climate Smart Commodities work and we continue to support 

innovation through the Dairy Business Innovation Initiatives. Finally, we are continuing to work 

with States to support opportunities to upgrade infrastructure, including for the dairy supply 

chain, through our Resilient Food Systems Infrastructure program.

Thank you for your continued advocacy on behalf of U.S. dairy farmers. 

Sincerely,

THOMAS J. VILSACK

Secretary
##### 



Exhibit 10.22
    
      1. Grant of Restricted Stock Units
  2. Performance Conditions.
 Performance Period
 - 1 -




---



##### 



Relative Performance
 (c) Performance Criteria
 Determination of Final Awards
 Dividend Equivalent Rights
   Delivery of Common Stock
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Elective Deferral of Receipt of Common Stock
 Non-Transferability.
 Termination of Employment
 Forfeiture of All Rights
 Forfeiture of Pro-Rated Rights
 Definitions
  - 3 -




---



##### 



th
 Designation of Beneficiary
 ithholding of Income and Other Taxes.
 . Adjustments in the Event of Change in Common Stock.
 . Legal Compliance
  - 4 -




---



##### 



Miscellaneous Provisions.
 Effect on Other Employee Benefit Plans
 No Employment Rights
 Entire Agreement; Amendment
 Governing Law
 Notices
   Compliance with Laws
 Binding Agreement; Assignment
 Counterparts
 - 5 -




---



##### 



Headings
 Further Assurances
 Severability
  BOWNE & CO., INC.By:Phil E. KuceraParticipant:Name:Signature:
 - 6 -




---



##### 




    
    For the 2006 to 2008 Performance Period*, performance for Plan purposes shall be
evaluated with respect to the financial performance of Bowne & Co. for that 3-year period
of time, as measured by the Companys Return on Invested Capital (ROIC).
    
    ROIC for the applicable 3-year period of time shall be calculated by the Companys Chief
Financial Officer and approved by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. ROIC
above 15% will be reduced to 15%. The percent of RSUs to be issued to Participant as a
Final Award will then be determined from the table below. ROIC below 9% will result in no
payout to Participant.
    
    If the calculated ROIC is other than 9%, 12% or 15%, the percent of RSU to be issued to
Participant as a Final Award will be interpolated on a straight-line basis.
 Applicable Percent Return on
    
    Percent of RSUs to be IssuedLevel of Performance
    
    Invested Capital
    
    as Final AwardThreshold
    
    9%
    
    50% of RSUsTarget
    
    12%
    
    100% of RSUsMaximum
    
    15%
    
    200% of RSUs
 
 *
    
    If the Maximum level of performance is achieved during the two calendar year period 2006 and 2007,
then the Performance Period will be shortened to those two years. - 7 -
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Monthly Inventory Report

As of September 25, 2023

(Million units except as noted)

CCC Commodity

Unit of

Measure

Outstanding

Under Loan

CY 2021

Outstanding

Under Loan

CY 2022

Outstanding

Under Loan

CY 2023

CCC

Owned

Inventory

(Actual)

Butter Pounds - - - -

Cheese Pounds - - - -

Nonfat Dry Milk Pounds - - - -

Barley Bushels 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0

Corn Bushels 0.1 20.0 7.0 0.0

Oats Bushels 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0

Sorghum Cwt. 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

Soybeans Bushels 0.1 3.3 0.0 0.0

Wheat Bushels 0.1 0.9 8.6 0.0

Rice Cwt. 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0

Refined Sugar Pounds 0.0 208.0 0.0 0.0

In-process Beet Pounds 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0

Raw Cane Sugar Pounds 0.0 190.2 0.0 0.0

In-process Cane Pounds - - - -

Honey Pounds 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0

Peanuts Tons 0.0 73,000 9,950 0.0

Canola Seed* Cwt. 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0

Crambe* Cwt. - - - -

Flaxseed* Cwt. 0.0 4.0 3.0 0.0

Mustard Seed* Cwt. 0.0 1.0 6.0 0.0

Rapeseed* Cwt. - - - -

Safflower Seed* Cwt. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sesame Seed* Cwt. - - - -

Sunflower Seed (Oil)* Cwt. 0.0 127.0 0.0 0.0

Sunflower Seed

(Other)* Cwt. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dry Peas* Cwt. 0.0 20.0 18.0 0.0

Lentils* Cwt. 0.0 8.0 10.0 0.0

Chickpeas* Cwt. 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0

Upland Cotton

1,000 Running

Bales 0.0 241.0 109.0 0.0

ELS Cotton

1,000 Running

Bales 0.0 48.6 0.0 0.0
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:

 Minor Oilseeds & Pulses are in thousand units.

 The table below illustrates the month Marketing Assistance Loans (MALs) were

forfeited to CCC (Forfeitures Received column), liquidation of CCC-owned

inventory (Sales column), and CCC-owned inventory as of the date this report

was completed (Current CCC-owned inventory column).

Date Forfeitures Received Sales Current CCC-owned Inventory

Jan-23

Feb-23

Mar-23

Apr-23

May-23

Jun-23

Jul-23

Aug-23 4 bales Upland cotton 4 bales Upland cotton 0

Sep-23 12 bales Upland cotton 12 bales Upland cotton 0

Oct-23 146 bales Upland cotton 146 bales Upland cotton 0

Nov-23

Dec-23

Report completed October 11, 2023
**Exhibit
      32.2**





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 Report of MSGI Security Solutions, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard J. Mitchell
      III, as Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the
                Company.





Dated:
                November 14, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Richard J. Mitchell, IIIRichard
                J. Mitchell IIIChief
                Accounting Officer(Principal
                Financial Officer)





This
      certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-KSB pursuant to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
      by
      such Act, be deemed filed by the small business issuer for purposes of Section
      18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**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**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Airbee Wireless, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Sundaresan Raja, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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






/s/
      Sundaresan Raja





Sundaresan
      Raja


Principal
      Executive Officer





August
      15, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Montague Jackson, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered August 4, 1989, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defen*578dant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000017

14-APR-2015

08:01 AM
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           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 American Bar Association
Members/State Street Collective Trust (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Beth M. Halberstadt, as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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 results of operations of the
Company.



                                                     /s/ Beth M. Halberstadt
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     Beth M. Halberstadt
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     May 10, 2005
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 7, 2015

jam

Order 

Clerk

April 7, 2015

151353 (23)

MICHAEL VAUGHN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 151353

COA: 323858

CENTRAL MICHIGAN CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY WARDEN, 

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $21.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$354.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil 

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JANE L. CREASON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

PUNEET KAUR SINGH; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-16000

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-03731-JST

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 9, 2016

San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Jane Creason (“Creason”) appeals the district court’s order granting

Appellees Puneet Kaur Singh, Theodore Kimball, and Kimball, Tierey & St.

John’s (“Appellees”) motion to dismiss. We affirm.

FILED

MAY 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Creason worked as a Senior Trial Attorney in the law firm Kimball, Tirey &

St. John, LLP (“KTS”), which specializes in representing owners and managers of

residential and commercial properties. In 2012, KTS assigned Creason to

represent a landlord seeking to evict two tenants after a domestic violence

disturbance took place in their unit. At a pre-trial settlement conference, Creason

obtained information that led her to believe the female tenant had a valid defense to

eviction based on her status as a domestic violence victim.

1

 Also, in Creason’s

view, proceeding to trial could constitute discrimination against the tenant based

on her sex and therefore expose her client to a lawsuit under the Fair Housing Act

(“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3631. With the approval of her client’s agent,

Creason negotiated a settlement that terminated the unlawful detainer proceeding

and allowed the female tenant to remain in the unit. KTS fired Creason for failing

to take the case to trial. Creason alleges that her termination constituted retaliation

under the FHA and several state laws. 

We agree with the district court that Creason cannot state a claim for

retaliation on the theory that she “aided or encouraged” the tenant “in the exercise

1

 California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161.3 provides a defense to eviction

for victims of domestic violence, with some exceptions. 

2
or enjoyment of” her rights under the FHA.2

 It is plausible that Creason believed

settling the eviction lawsuit to be in the best interests of her landlord-client, and

that the settlement benefitted the tenant by allowing her to remain in her home. 

This type of indirect or incidental assistance, however, is beyond the scope of the

FHA’s retaliation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 3617, and is distinguishable from Smith v.

Stechel, 510 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1975).

AFFIRMED.

2

 The district court assumed without deciding that “evicting a tenant with a

valid domestic violence defense could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex

in violation of Section 3604” of the FHA because the majority of domestic

violence victims are women. In light of our disposition, we have no need to

address this issue.

3
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH DISTRICT, AT TEXARKANA

No. 06-14-00034-CV

David Eron Bouknight

v.

Cynthia Dianne Bouknight

(No. 06-0896 IN 71ST DISTRICT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

FILING

$15.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$141.00

$10.00

$195.00

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

DAVID BOUKNIGHT

DAVID BOUKNIGHT

DAVID BOUKNIGHT

DAVID BOUKNIGHT

DAVID BOUKNIGHT

DAVID BOUKNIGHT

DAVID BOUKNIGHT

DAVID BOUKNIGHT

Balance of costs owing to the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE 

STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct 

copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, 

as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, 

witness my hand and the Seal of 

the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Sixth District of Texas, this 

April 14, 2015.

DEBRA AUTREY, CLERK

By ___________________________

Deputy
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0496. WASEEM DAKER v. ROBERT L. RUSSELL, III.

The Appellant in the above-styled case has filed a Motion For Voluntary

Dismissal Without Prejudice. Said motion is hereby GRANTED.

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.

December 30, 2019

12/30/2019