alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2IEA Income Fund XII, L.P.Rule 13a-14 CERTIFICATION     I, John Kallas, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IEA Income Fund XII, L.P. (the“Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (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 tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, based on our evaluation; and          (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Partnership’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (thePartnership’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’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 havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: August 11, 2006     /s/ JOHN KALLAS John Kallas  Vice President and
# C_2016202EN.01008401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/84

---

Article 89

(ex Article 32 TEU)

(ex Article 32 TEU)

The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall lay down the conditions and limitations under which the competent authorities of the Member States referred to in Articles 82 and 87 may operate in the territory of another Member State in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of that State. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 867 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 867

    To exempt the natural aging process in the determination of the 
   production period for distilled spirits under section 263A of the 
                     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2015

Mr. Barr (for himself, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Massie, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, 
Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Fincher) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To exempt the natural aging process in the determination of the 
   production period for distilled spirits under section 263A of the 
                     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

    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 ``Aged Distilled Spirits 
Competitiveness Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF NATURAL AGING PROCESS IN DETERMINATION OF 
              PRODUCTION PERIOD FOR DISTILLED SPIRITS UNDER SECTION 
              263A.

    (a) In General.--Section 263A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to general exceptions) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Exemption of natural aging process in determination 
        of production period for distilled spirits.--For purposes of 
        this subsection, the production period for distilled spirits 
        shall be determined without regard to any period allocated to 
        the natural aging process.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to production periods beginning after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
Agricultural Marketing Service

Update

NOSB-NOP-EPA Working Group

on Inert Ingredients

National Organic Standards Board Meeting

October 30, 2014

Louisville, Kentucky
Agricultural Marketing Service

Working Group on Inert Ingredients

• NOSB: Jay Feldman, Zea Sonnabend

• NOP: Emily Brown Rosen, Lisa M. Brines 

• EPA: Chris Pfeifer (BPPD), Kerry Leifer

(Registration Division, Inerts)
Agricultural Marketing Service

Background

• The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 indicates 

that the National List may provide for the use of 

inerts in pesticides that are not classified by EPA as 

“inerts of toxicological concern”

• NOP definition of “inert ingredient” follows from 

FIFRA definitions (i.e., not necessarily 

chemically/biologically “inert”)
Agricultural Marketing Service

NOP Rule - National List

• List 4 – Inerts of Minimal Concern

– Synthetic inert ingredients classified as List 4A 

and 4B by EPA are allowed in pesticides for 

organic use (§ 205.601(m) and §205.603(e))

• List 3 inerts are allowed in passive pheromone 

dispensers only (§205.601(m)(2))

• Both are subject to sunset review, List 4 must be 

renewed or changed by October, 2017
Agricultural Marketing Service

Issue

• EPA put inerts into lists according to toxicology and use 

pattern

• EPA revised system of assessment in 2006 and no 

longer uses or maintains Lists 1-4

• NOP is operating with obsolete list of inerts, last 

updated August 2004

• Manufacturers are petitioning for use of inerts that do 

not appear on the old lists
Agricultural Marketing Service

Timeline of actions 

• April 2010 initial NOSB recommendation 

– Proposed to work with EPA for review of inerts

– Various options for review and listing

• Oct 2010 - NOSB renewed List 4 inerts due to 

sunset in 2012

• Dec 2010, IWG established

– EPA members indicated that review would need to be 

under USDA/ NOSB auspices
Agricultural Marketing Service

Timeline of actions (cont’d)

• October 2012, NOSB recommendation

– proposed policy to review all known inerts by groups, with 

individual inclusion on National List

• Oct 2012 - May 2013

– IWG developed lists of known inerts, grouping for review

– IWG developed plan for public notification and comment
Agricultural Marketing Service

Timeline of actions 

• May 2013-April 2014

– NOP met with EPA staff, Design for the 

Environment

• A voluntary label program for safer chemical products

• Publishes a Safer Chemical Ingredient List

• Detailed criteria also published

http://www.epa.gov/dfe
Agricultural Marketing Service

Timeline since April 2014

• OGC reviewed the concept of collaborating 

with EPA

• NOP provided more background to DfE 

• Planning for interagency meetings
Agricultural Marketing Service

Next steps

• NOP and EPA will meet further to develop plans 

for collaboration

• NOP will consult with NOSB on options

• Public notice will be given via Federal Register

• NOP is providing Crops Subcommittee with a TR 

for one category of List 4 inerts

– Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs)
Agricultural Marketing Service

Questions?
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40974

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EZEQUIEL GODINEZ-CERVANTES,

also known as “El Guero”,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-96-CR-284-1

- - - - - - - - - -

May 6, 1998

Before DUHE, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ezequiel Godinez-Cervantes (Godinez) appeals his sentence

following a guilty plea conviction for aiding and abetting the

distribution of heroin and distribution of heroin. Godinez

argues that the district court erred in its method of upward

departure. Godinez did not make this challenge in the court

below; therefore, we review for plain error. See United States

v. Maldonado, 42 F.3d 906, 909-12 (5th Cir. 1995); see also
No. 97-40974

-2-

United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.

1995)(en banc)(citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-

37 (1993)). Because the district court was not required to give

reasons for the extent of its departure under § 5K2.0 and the

court specified the reasons the interim criminal history 

categories were inadequate pursuant to § 4A1.3, Godinez has not

demonstrated plain error. See United States v. Lee, 989 F.2d

180, 183 (5th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Lambert, 984

F.2d 658, 663 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc).

Godinez also argues that the district court, by taking into

account his escape status when upwardly departing, erroneously

relied on a factor adequately considered by the guidelines. 

Godinez also did not raise this argument in the district court;

therefore, we review for plain error. Further, Godinez contends

that the district court erred in considering unreliable hearsay

testimony Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Agent James Spurr in

upwardly departing. Because Godinez raised this contention in

the district court, we review for clear error. See United States

v. Edwards, 65 F.3d 430, 432 (5th Cir. 1995).

Inasmuch as the district court also considered separately

adequate for its departure the underrepresentation of Godinez’s

criminal history score, based on his unscored prior convictions,

which alone would have given him 21 criminal history points and a

U.S. Sentencing Guideline imprisonment range of 324-405 months,

the record reflects that the district court would have imposed
No. 97-40974

-3-

the same sentence absent its reliance on Agent Spurr’s testimony

or Godinez’s escape status; therefore, the district court did not 
No. 97-40974

-4-

commit clear or plain error determining its upward departure. 

See Koon v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 2035, 2053-54 (1996).

AFFIRMED.
02/22/201 1 10:0 2 FA X 2024935U 2 FA A * DM S 0001/00 2 

### >^RT;/tNTO F

- \SFORWIO M Februar y 9 . 201 1 - ; T OrERATlONS ' -.^• J CERTIFIE D N4A1L-RETUR N RECEIP T RFOUESTF. D ••-' , " ? A » 0 0 

### • ' - ' FE B 1 : 201 1 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n - ~ A . -K^r, . ) -.r^r--.-^-^

- 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 / Wilbur Wright Building-Suit e 2wl00 0 CPll l Wp06*:' f / 9 W( 3 'bU-^' j RE : In th e Matter

ofSamue l Josep h Latham ; Cas e No . 2010WP15001 6 In rcspon. w t o your

lette r receive dJanuar

y 28,201 1 ,th c Complainanl' s Discover y reques t fromth e RespondenL At

thi s tim e th e Responden t

doe s no t hav e an y additiona l informatio n tha i th e Complainan t doe s no t already possess . Th e Responden t wil l fiimish additiona l informatio n a s i t become s available . My respons e t o th e Interrogator y numbe r 8 . Yes , I conten dtha t

T a munabl e t o pa

y th e propose dcivi l penall y a s detaile di n paragrap h I . o f tli e Complaint . Th e fact s l o suppor

t m y contentio n ar c a s follows : I a masnugglin g colleg e studen t 1 hav e bee n payin g for

colleg e wit

h grant s andstuden t

loans . Aflc r

m y tuitio n i s pai di hav e alittl e lef t that help s m e pay fo

r som e foo dan dsom e rent . I hav e als o ha dacoupl e o f different part tim e job s i n 2010 . A s fa

r a s 201 1 i s goin g 1 d o no t hav e ajo b an da malmos t ou t o f m y lef t ove r loan money . Th e onl y possessio n I hav e i s a199 0 FordRange r pick

u p truck . Th e docimicni s tha t

wil l b e enclose dt o support m y contentio n wil l b e a s follows : bank statements , W- 2 form s fo r 201 0 an dfor

m1098' T fromSoaihen ) Orego n University an d certificat e o f

titl e for m y vehicle . Your consideratio n i

n this matte r

i s greatl y appreciated . Respectfull y submitted , Samue l Latham , Responden t02/22/201 1 10.0 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 21002/00 2

CERTIFICAT E O

K SERVIC E I , Samue l Latham , hereb y certif y that o n Februar

y 9,201 1 I serve dcopies o f m y respons e 1 0 th e Complainant s reques t for discover y o n th e followin g partie s b y wa y o f certifie d 

### mail-retur n receipt. Pcc^^/ s S^^^r/ ^ i^n^c) ^ s/A^^^y , ^

TEL : 310-725-711 7 FAX : 310-725-681 6 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodvidn , Admirustrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E , Cast Buildin g Groun dMoor , Roo mE12-32 0 Wo-shington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Anomey-Adviso r

202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

Date ^ ' ^ 

## ^ ^^^t^zni : Signatur e
# C_2016202EN.01016301.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/163 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/163

---

Article 265

(ex Article 232 TEC)

(ex Article 232 TEC)

Should the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the Commission or the European Central Bank, in infringement of the Treaties, fail to act, the Member States and the other institutions of the Union may bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union to have the infringement established. This Article shall apply, under the same conditions, to bodies, offices and agencies of the Union which fail to act.

The action shall be admissible only if the institution, body, office or agency concerned has first been called upon to act. If, within two months of being so called upon, the institution, body, office or agency concerned has not defined its position, the action may be brought within a further period of two months.

Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the preceding paragraphs, complain to the Court that an institution, body, office or agency of the Union has failed to address to that person any act other than a recommendation or an opinion.

---
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge 

Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation 

Moran Law Firm, LLC 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COUFtT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40100

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROLAND CASTRO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-99-CR-289-1

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

September 14, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Roland Castro appeals his conviction for being a felon in

possession of a firearm. He argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)

“operates unconstitutionally in a case where the only interstate

commerce nexus is the mere fact that the firearms at some point

in the past traveled interstate.” He also argues that the

evidence adduced at trial gives nearly equal circumstantial

support for a theory of guilt as a theory of innocence;

therefore, reversal is required. 

 Castro’s timely post-verdict motion for a judgment of
No. 00-40100

-2-

acquittal preserves his right to appellate review of his

insufficient-evidence claim. See United States v. Allison, 616

F.2d 779, 783-84 (5th Cir. 1980). 

We review the district court’s denial of the motion de novo. 

United States v. Ferguson, 211 F.3d 878, 882 (5th Cir. 2000).

 “This court has repeatedly emphasized that the

constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is not open to question.” See

United States v. De Leon, 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 120 S. Ct. 156 (1999). Recent decisions by the Supreme

Court do not alter this ruling. Moreover, the jury could

reasonably find that the black object which fell from Castro’s

pocket was the gun that was recovered a short time later. The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 AFFIRMED.
Notice 

This shipment does not meet the requirements of 

Section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement 

Act (AMAA) of 1937 

In order to comply with the import requirement, one of the 

following actions is necessary: 

REQUIRED ACTION PROPER DOCUMENTATION 

1) Recondition the shipment that currently fails 

8e import requirements and have it re-inspected, 

with the destruction of any culls witnessed by a 

USDA inspector. 

Or 

2) Export the shipment to another country 

Or 

3) Send the shipment for exempt use, for 

example, donate the shipment to a food bank 

or other charitable organization. 

Or 

4) Destroy, dump, dispose of the shipment, 

witnessed by a USDA inspector 

1) USDA, AMS inspection certificate(s) for all units meeting 8e Import 

Requirements and a certificate for all destroyed units. These items must 

equal the original quantity of imported shipment 

2) Customs Form 7512 signed by CBP personnel or with Customs 

date hole punch stamp, or a Customs Form 7512 stamped "QP In Bond 

Authorized" with a paid freight bill showing destination and proper 

quantity of product. 

3) Electronically completed form SC-6, submitted on-line to USDA, 

MDD, Compliance and Enforcement Branch; visit our website for a 

listing of acceptable exempt uses for each commodity; for additional 

information, please visit, www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/ 

section8e/understanding-sc6 

4) USDA, AMS certificate documenting all units being 

disposed, this item must equal the original quantity of imported 

shipment 

Documentation of failed inspection(s) will be forwarded to the USDA, AMS, Market Development Division 

(MDD), Compliance and Enforcement Branch, which will follow-up, to determine the failed product’s 

disposition. If the violation is not handled as listed above, you may be subject to one or more of the following: 

A. U.S. Customs demand for redeliver or liquidated damages for three times the value of imports 

B. U.S. Customs denial of entry for this shipment as well as future shipments. 

C. $3,147 penalty per violation, each day the violation occurs. 

D. Civilforfeitureofthepresentmarketvalue. 

Pleaseforwarda copy of thefailed inspection certificatealong with documentationof theshipments 

ultimate disposition: ComplianceInfo@ams.usda.gov 

Please contact us with any question concerning how to document, and comply with the AMAA appropriately: 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/section8e 

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/section8e/complying 

ComplianceInfo@ams.usda.gov 

Customer Service Line, at 888-551-3523
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>      THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
              FROM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONDENSED
              CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND NOTES TO CONDENSED
              CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
              ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          40,649
<SECURITIES>                                    47,885
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                       901
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,414
<PP&E>                                          36,280
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,808
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     109,047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   181,609
<SALES>                                         48,597
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,597
<CGS>                                            1,717
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,438 <F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (883)<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,760
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,510
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,250
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,250
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70
<FN>
<F1>MINORITY INTEREST SHARE OF NET INCOME AND LOSS ON EQUITY JOINT VENTURES
<F2>REPRESENTS NET INTEREST INCOME
</FN>


</TABLE>
. p;&M: Ctwxl.v-\6"'"' -hVi 

Mr-eJ Vl;;r{prl ~311 i 

C/.AO ( Plv\ 1>CQ,ri1 N I 

~ t1A)Ov r~dL-1\X 1 w :lP! 

-~J-p;;vf l Sr 11J I ~ 

1b ~ C(~r(L 

c~+o~CirMc~~ ~~~S oflfJ<t/6 

f. D ~o)( ~t cdc r ;N 't(.llun 

itu&~ J } \j /l01l { 

RECE~VED ~N COURT 01= CRlMINA.l APPEAlS 

APR 20 2WS 

Ab®f Acosta, Clerk