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, Richard P. Sommerfeld, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Airbee Wireless, Inc., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Airbee Wireless, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s first fiscal quarter) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. /s/ Richard P. Sommerfeld, Jr. Richard P. Sommerfeld, Jr.Chief Financial Officer August 10, 2005
Official SBOC Results – GIAC 2022
Terms

• Total Certificates - Number of Official inspection certificates with SBOC reported

• % #1 SBOC – % of certificates where SBOC result met the grade criteria for US #1 (<=1%)

• % #2 SBOC – % of certificates where SBOC result met the grade criteria for US #2

(>1% and <=2%)

• % #3 SBOC – % of certificates where SBOC result met the grade criteria for US #3

(>2% and <= 5%)

• % Exceeds #1 SBOC - % of certificates where SBOC result did not meet the grade criteria for US 

#1 (>1%)

• Avg SBOC – Average SBOC result across all certified results. (certificates, not work records)

• Certs Exceeding #1 SBOC - Number of Official inspection certificates where the reported result 

did not meet the grade criteria for US #1. 
2011-2022 Certificates with SBOC

Calendar 

Year

Total 

Certificates % #1 SBOC

% #2 

SBOC % #3 SBOC

% Exceeds #1 

SBOC

Avg 

SBOC

Certs Exceeding #1 

SBOC

2011 62327 99.69% 0.17% 0.08% 0.31% 0.02% 194

2012 72161 99.81% 0.07% 0.04% 0.19% 0.02% 138

2013 64194 99.81% 0.12% 0.03% 0.19% 0.02% 122

2014 84214 99.90% 0.03% 0.05% 0.10% 0.02% 88

2015 83218 99.73% 0.14% 0.07% 0.27% 0.02% 226

2016 110560 99.79% 0.14% 0.04% 0.21% 0.01% 232

2017 96564 99.18% 0.46% 0.26% 0.82% 0.03% 792

2018 89085 99.64% 0.26% 0.07% 0.36% 0.02% 319

2019 92367 98.78% 0.78% 0.35% 1.22% 0.08% 1123

2020 114375 99.47% 0.37% 0.12% 0.53% 0.03% 602

2021 116794 92.19% 5.40% 2.06% 7.81% 0.27% 9127

2022 56555 75.37% 15.67% 8.41% 24.63% 0.74% 13932
Average SBOC %

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

Jan Aug Mar Oct May Dec Jul Feb Sep Apr Nov Jun Jan Aug Mar Oct May Dec Jul Feb Sep Apr

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
% Soybean Certificates where SBOC 

was certified and met US #1 criteria 

(<= 1.0%)

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Jan

Jun

Nov

Apr

Sep

Feb

Jul

Dec

May

Oct

Mar

Aug

Jan

Jun

Nov

Apr

Sep

Feb

Jul

Dec

May

Oct

Mar

Aug

Jan

Jun

Nov

Apr

Sep

Feb
July 2021 – June 21, 2022

Month

Total 

Certificates

% #1 

SBOC

% #2 

SBOC

% #3 

SBOC

% Exceeds #1 

SBOC

Avg 

SBOC

Certs Exceeding 

#1 SBOC

Jul 3907 99.85% 0.13% 0.03% 0.15% 0.03% 6

Aug 3553 99.92% 0.08% 0.00% 0.08% 0.01% 3

Sep 5593 95.83% 2.54% 1.36% 4.17% 0.17% 233

Oct 23496 82.21% 10.37% 6.12% 17.79% 0.61% 4181

Nov 22436 88.10% 9.56% 2.13% 11.90% 0.36% 2671

Dec 17827 89.02% 8.58% 2.25% 10.98% 0.37% 1958

Jan 13748 81.32% 11.46% 6.92% 18.68% 0.58% 2568

Feb 9838 81.18% 13.23% 5.35% 18.82% 0.61% 1852

Mar 9966 75.47% 19.06% 5.13% 24.53% 0.70% 2445

Apr 8622 71.99% 17.29% 10.26% 28.01% 0.79% 2415

May 8648 67.92% 17.78% 12.95% 32.08% 0.96% 2774

Jun (1-21) 5733 67.24% 18.37% 13.26% 32.76% 0.96% 1878
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund XI, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing
Member of the Company, hereby 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 7, 2010



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                        
|Paritosh K. Choksi                            
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  
|Officer and Chief Operating Officer of        
|ATEL Financial Services, LLC (Managing Member)

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2004106EN.01007802.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/78 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/78

---

Action brought on 1 March 2004 by Milagros Irene Arranz Benítez against the European Parliament

(Case T-87/04)

(2004/C 106/153)

Language of the case: French

An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 March 2004 by Milagros Irene Arranz Benítez, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

| — | annul the decision of the Head of the European Parliament's ‘Individual Rights’ Division of 15 April 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Head of the European Parliament's ‘Individual Rights’ Division of 15 April 2003;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested act the Parliament decided to take into consideration, for the purpose of calculating the tax abatement provided for by Article 3 of Regulation 260/68 (1) and the expatriation allowance payable to the applicant, two only of her children, on the ground that actual maintenance of the children was shared between the applicant and her former husband, who is also an official and entitled to the same allowances. The applicant challenges this decision, claiming that she alone actually maintains the children, given that the monthly contribution paid by her former husband for each child is less than the threshold laid down by the conclusions of the Group of the Heads of Administration and is not, in any case, of such an amount that the children can be regarded as being dependent on their father, given the latter's grade and his posting outside the Communities.

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for the benefit of the European Communities (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 II, p. 37).

1

---
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00380-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
**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 Annual Report of MSGI Security Solutions, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.
      Jeremy Barbera, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Interim
      Chief
      Financial 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 result of operations of the Company.


Dated:October
                13, 2006By:
              /s/ Richard
                J. Mitchell IIIChief
                  Accounting Officer
                (Principal
                    Financial Officer)


This
      certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K 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 Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form with the electronic version of this written statement required
      by
      Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner

v. CHRISTOPHER TISDALE, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 578 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 31st day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 12 

Expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should 

be issued in honor of the Buffalo Soldiers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2019 

Mrs. BEATTY (for herself, Mr. BROWN of Maryland, Ms. CLARKE of New 

York, Mr. COHEN, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. LEWIS, Ms. 

MOORE, Ms. NORTON, Mr. RYAN, Mr. SOTO, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. VELA, 

and Mrs. LURIA) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative 

postage stamp should be issued in honor of the Buffalo 

Soldiers. 

Whereas, on July 28, 1866, Congress established six allBlack regiments, later consolidated to four, to help rebuild the country after the Civil War and to patrol the 

remote western frontier during the Indian wars; 

Whereas Colonel Charles Young was a Buffalo Soldier and 

the highest ranking African-American commanding officer in the United States Army from 1894 until his death 

in 1922; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 12 IH 

Whereas more than 200,000 African-Americans served in 

World War I and more than 1 million served in World 

War II; 

Whereas the Buffalo Soldiers received their name because of 

the buffalo’s fierce bravery and fighting spirit; 

Whereas African-American troops accepted the name, Buffalo 

Soldiers, with pride and honor; 

Whereas the Buffalo Soldiers fought alongside White regiments in many conflicts and were instrumental in the exploration and settlement of western lands; 

Whereas, over the 82 years of the Buffalo Soldiers’ existence, 

23 men received the Congressional Medal of Honor, the 

highest recognition awarded by the United States Government for military service; 

Whereas the Buffalo Soldiers ceased to exist in 1948 when 

President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9981 

mandating equal treatment and opportunity for AfricanAmerican servicemen; 

Whereas the Buffalo Soldiers are a significant part of American military history; 

Whereas a stamp was issued in honor of the Buffalo Soldiers 

on April 22, 1994, and this stamp was placed on ‘‘off 

sale’’ in December 1995; and 

Whereas reissuing a postage stamp to honor the Buffalo Soldiers is fitting and proper: 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) a commemorative postage stamp should be 

4 issued in honor of the Buffalo Soldiers; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HCON 12 IH 

1 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee 

2 should recommend to the Postmaster General that 

3 such a stamp be issued. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
My name is Robby and I primarily deal in the biomass industry - and there seems to be some misunderstandings among businesses, in regards to what a certain word in the farm bill means for hemp - SEC297B(ii) - and that line is the term "post-decarboxylation", referring to the testing protocols states must require, or other similar reliable methods, to construct how an individual is to test and interpret what exactly the Delta-9 THC concentrations are in a hemp flower.  

I wanted to ask, **how does that word effect how businesses should determine whether or not their material is "hot", and does this word mean that THCa levels can dictate whether or not material is hot?**

I believe this question would receive a high amount of interest and feedback from the industry, and benefit the majority of the people on the webinar, who have not read or do not understand that language.

Robby Kerr
NO. 03-12-474-CR

CHRISTINA LYONS * IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appellant *

VS. * OF THE THIRD

* SUPREME JUDICIAL

* DISTRICT OF TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS *

Appellee * AT AUSTIN TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, CHRISTINA LYONS, Appellant, and files this Motion for an

Extension in which to file a Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration. In support

of this motion, appellant shows the Court the following:

I.

The Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Hays County, Texas of

the offense of Capital Murder. The Appellant was assessed life without the possibility

of parole

II.

The deadline for filing the Motion for rehearing and reconsideration is April,

2015 and Appellant has requested one previous extensions.

III.

ACCEPTED

03-12-00474-CR

4890537

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/14/2015 8:01:53 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/14/2015 8:01:53 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Attorney for the Appellant would further show the Court that he has been

diligent in preparing a motion for rehearing in this case. Counsel has reviewed the

Court’s opinion and is drafting Appellant’s response, but will be unable to file said

response by the deadline due to a his trial and appellate docket. Counsel has had

several trial docketsin the last thirty daysin multiple countiesthat required extensive

work up. In addition, Counsel is arguing in the Court of Criminal Appeals on a death

case on April 15 and thatrequired more preparation than anticipated, and counsel was

unable to finish the motion. 

WHEREFORE, Appellant prays the Court grant this Motion and extend the

deadline for filing a Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration to May 15, 2015.

Respectfully Submitted,

ARIEL PAYAN

Attorney at Law

1012 Rio Grande

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 478-3900

(512) 472-4102 (fax)

 /s/ Ariel Payan 

ARIEL PAYAN

State Bar No. 00794430

Arielpayan@hotmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
By my signature above, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the

above and foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing and

Reconsideration has been delivered to the Criminal District Attorney of said County

Texas, on April 14, 2015.
International Commodity Procurement Division Purchases

FY2018 - Quarter 3

Commodity Qty in MT PO Value Average Cost

BEANS, BLACK BAG-50 KG 200 $163,762.00 $818.81

BEANS, PINTO BAG-50 KG 570 $346,512.20 $607.92

BULGUR BAG-50 KG 1,250 $455,980.00 $364.78

CORNMEAL BAG-HP-25 KG 1,000 $479,246.70 $479.25

CORN-SOY BLEND PLUS BAG-HP-25 KG 12,020 $8,436,684.90 $701.89

CSB SUPER CEREAL PLUS BOX-10/1.5 KG 1,050 $2,033,644.68 $1,936.78

FLOUR, ALL PURPOSE BAG-50 KG 5,000 $2,545,370.80 $509.07

LENTILS BAG-50 KG 720 $369,299.50 $512.92

OIL, SOYBEAN, CRUDE, DEGUMMED BULK 6,000 $4,592,640.00 $765.44

OIL, VEGETABLE BOTTLE, PLS-6/4 L 670-719 200 $211,975.59 $1,059.69

OIL, VEGETABLE CAN-6/4 L 25,880 $29,414,361.79 $1,136.55

PEAS, GREEN, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 20,930 $12,227,637.20 $584.22

PEAS, GREEN, WHOLE BAG-50 KG 8,180 $3,878,308.20 $474.12

PEAS, YELLOW, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 11,410 $5,093,589.30 $446.41

PEAS, YELLOW, WHOLE BAG-50 KG 760 $311,356.80 $409.68

RICE, 2/7 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 600 $314,958.00 $524.93

RICE, 2/7 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 1,610 $857,872.40 $532.84

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 3,780 $1,756,822.40 $464.77

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 5,900 $3,056,657.00 $518.08

RICE, MILLED BULK 15,440 $8,222,880.80 $532.57

SORGHUM BAG-50 KG 5,780 $1,420,428.10 $245.75

SORGHUM BULK 81,520 $16,349,915.90 $200.56

SOYBEAN MEAL BULK 30,700 $14,477,700.00 $471.59

SOYBEANS, YELLOW BULK 6,000 $2,322,000.00 $387.00

WHEAT, NORTHERN SPRING BULK 39,800 $12,956,996.60 $325.55

WHEAT, SOFT WHITE BULK 111,100 $24,942,526.00 $224.51

Grand Total 397,400 $157,239,126.86 

Commodity Qty in EA PO Value Average Cost

BAGS, WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE- 50 KG 1,355,000 $449,356.43 $0.3316
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1005 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1005

 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to amend the schedule for 
 rating disabilities to add a diagnostic code and evaluation criteria 
        for obliterative bronchiolitis, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2019

   Mr. Castro of Texas (for himself, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Ruiz, and Mr. 
  Cisneros) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to amend the schedule for 
 rating disabilities to add a diagnostic code and evaluation criteria 
        for obliterative bronchiolitis, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Burn Pit Veterans Revision Act''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS DISABILITY RATING 
              SCHEDULE WITH RESPECT TO OBLITERATIVE BRONCHIOLITIS.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall--
            (1) amend the schedule for rating disabilities pursuant to 
        section 1155 of title 38, United States Code, to add a 
        diagnostic code and evaluation criteria for obliterative 
        bronchiolitis; and
            (2) provide a process by which a veteran who, as of the 
        date of the enactment of this Act, is receiving compensation 
        under chapter 11 of such title for a service-connected 
        disability--
                    (A) may have such service-connected disability 
                reevaluated based on the diagnostic code and evaluation 
                criteria described in paragraph (1); and
                    (B) may be assigned a new disability rating as a 
                result of such reevaluation, if such assignment does 
                not reduce the disability rating of such veteran in 
                effect immediately prior to the date of such 
                assignment.
                                 <all>
```
ACCEPTED03-14-00607-CV4862819THIRD COURT OF APPEALSAUSTIN, TEXAS4/13/2015 1:16:23 PMJEFFREY D. KYLECLERK
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 9, 2015

No. 04-15-00179-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.R., et al, children,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-02399

Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal in a parental termination case. The reporter’s record was 

originally due on April 6, 2015. The court reporter has filed a notification of late reporter’s 

record. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 35.3(c) provides that we may not extend the deadline 

to file the reporter’s record by more than ten days in an accelerated appeal. TEX. R. APP. P.

35.3(c). The reporter’s record is therefore due on April 16, 2015.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court