alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Dean L. Cash, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund XI, LLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances 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 information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: November 22, 2005/s/ Dean L. Cash
1

Sutton, Lisa

From: Frey, Nathan J. <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 12:34 PM

To: Lorang, Phil

Cc: Schillo, Bruce; Balserak, Paul; Sutton, Lisa; Coda, Tom; Brachtl, Megan; Johnson, Yvonne 

W; Long, Pam; Wood, Anna; Koerber, Mike; South, Mia; Henigin, Mary; Owens, Nicole

Subject: RE: EPA response to Additional Interagency Comments Under EO 12866 and 13563 -- 

Supplemental Proposal to Address Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Affirmative 

Defense Provisions in SIPs

We have concluded our review under EO 12866 and 13563 of the SNPRM to Address Startup, Shutdown, and 

Malfunction (SSM) Affirmative Defense Provisions in SIPs RIN # 2060-AR68. 

Thanks, 

Nathan 

From: Lorang, Phil [mailto:Lorang.Phil@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:16 PM 

To: Frey, Nathan J. 

Cc: Schillo, Bruce; Balserak, Paul; Sutton, Lisa; Coda, Tom; Brachtl, Megan; Johnson, Yvonne W; Long, Pam; Wood, 

Anna; Koerber, Mike; South, Mia; Henigin, Mary 

Subject: EPA response to Additional Interagency Comments Under EO 12866 and 13563 -- Supplemental Proposal to 

Address Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Affirmative Defense Provisions in SIPs 

Nathan, 

We do not have any questions or concerns regarding the additional interagency comments. We appreciate the 

comments pointing out sentences that will benefit from greater clarity, and the suggested edits of other sentences 

towards the same goal. 

The attached version responds to the comments, via an EPA response within each comment bubble in every case and in 

some cases by edits to the text. The only other change we have identified at our end and incorporated into this version 

is a change in the room number for the public hearing. A clean version is also attached. Please do not upload this clean 

version into ROCIS, as we will need to edit the header before the upload by Office of Policy staff. 

Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor 

Air Quality Policy Division 

919-541-5463 

From: Frey, Nathan J. [mailto:Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 10:29 AM 

To: Lorang, Phil 

Cc: Schillo, Bruce; Balserak, Paul; Sutton, Lisa; Coda, Tom; Brachtl, Megan; Johnson, Yvonne W; Long, Pam; Wood, Anna

Subject: Summary of Additional Interagency Comments Under EO 12866 and 13563 -- Supplemental Proposal to Address 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Affirmative Defense Provisions in SIPs 

Attached please find a summary of additional interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 regarding the 

Supplemental Proposal to Address Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) Affirmative Defense Provisions in SIPs. 
2

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Order entered April 20, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00155-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.M. AND F.F., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-55816-2014

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s April 16, 2015 second motion to extend time to file brief and 

ORDER the brief be filed no later than May 7, 2015. 

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 22, 2010

0114 

# Order

January 22, 2010

139907

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139907 COA: 286915 Wayne CC: 08-007633-FH SHAWN ADAMS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 1, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERS E the judgment of the Court of Appeals and
we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court fo r further proceedings not
inconsistent with this order. When reviewing courts assess a magistrate’s conclusion that probable cause to search existed, courts ar e to consider the unde rlying affidavit in a
“common-sense and realistic manner.” People v Russo, 439 Mich 583, 604 (1992), Reviewing courts must also pay deference to a magistrate’s determ ination that probable cause existed. This deference “requires the reviewing court to ask only whether a reasonably cautious person could have concluded that there wa s a ‘substantial basis’ for the finding of probable cause.” Id . at 603, quoting Illinois v Gates , 462 US 213, 236 (1983). Here the affidavit by Officer DeKiere provided the magistrate with more-thanadequate grounds to conclude there was a “fair probability” that contraband and
additional evidence of a crim e would be found at the defendant’s residence. Id. at 604. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise.

Moreover, the Court of Appeal s further erred by relying on United States v Leon, 468 US 897 (1984), to rule th at the good-faith exception to an improperly issued search warrant could not apply in this case be cause the police officer who supplied the underlying affidavit for the search warrant also executed the warrant. Regardless of whether there was probable cause for the i ssuance of the sear ch warrant of the defendant’s premises in this case, there is no evidence that the officer provided an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable caus e as to render his subsequent official belief
in its existence entir ely unreasonable. Id. at 919-921. The evidence shows that the officer executed the warrant with a good -faith belief that it was properly issued.
# L_2012112EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ACT

ACT

concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

PART FIVE

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT

TITLE III

FINAL PROVISIONS

FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 53

Annexes I to IX, the Appendices thereto and the Protocol are an integral part of this Act.

---
### AppealOrdered Withdrawn and Opinion issuedApril 26, 2000

In The 

## Cimrt ofAppeals Jftfflj m&ttitt of Ofexaa at Dallas
No. 05-00-00497-CR No. 05-00-00498-CR No. 05-00-00499-CR


### BENJAMINDOUGLAS, Appellant V. 

### STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appealfrom the County Criminal Court No. 6 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MB98-38071, MB98-56842 & MB98-56843 OPINION PER CURIAM Before ChiefJustice Thomas and Justices Kinkeade and O'Neill 

### Appellant has filed amotion towithdraw the appeal. Appellant's counsel has approved the motion. 

### This Court hereby GRANTSthemotion and ORDERS theappeal withdrawn and that 

### this decision be certified below for observance. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).
PER CURIAM Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47 

# If*Fifth Court ofAppeals Case Attorney Address List Page: 1 Date Printed: 04/26/2000 Case Number: 05-00-00498-CR Date Filed: 03/28/2000 

### Style: Douglas, Benjamin

v. The State ofTexas Trial Judge: Barker, Phil 

### Trial CourtReporter: Phillips, Trisha 

### Trial Court: COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO 6 Trial County: DALLAS STA William T. (Bill) Hill, Jr. ATT 009669000 ATTN: APPELLATE SECTION Frank Crowley Courts Bldg., 10th FL 133 N. Industrial Blvd. LB 19 Dallas, TX 75207 Phone 214/653-3845 Fax BENJAMIN DOUGLAS BN #00002818 500 COMMERCE STREET DALLAS TX 75202
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350



(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce A. Williamson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: |  | November 12, 2003 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    BRUCE A.
WILLIAMSON                               
|----- |  | ----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|      |  |                   |  |  |  |     |  | Bruce A. Williamson President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Dynegy Inc. and will be retained by Dynegy Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1253 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

13507 Van Nuys Boulevard in Pacoima, California, as the ‘‘Ritchie 

Valens Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 

Mr. CA ́RDENAS (for himself, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. 

DESAULNIER, Mr. SWALWELL of California, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. AGUILAR, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. CORREA, Mr. 

PETERS, Ms. BARRAGA ́N, Mr. HUNTER, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, Mr. 

CARBAJAL, Mr. CISNEROS, Mr. LOWENTHAL, Mr. GARAMENDI, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. ROUDA, Mr. VARGAS, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. 

BERA, Mr. COOK, Ms. HILL of California, Mr. LEVIN of California, Mrs. 

DAVIS of California, Ms. WATERS, Ms. BASS, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. 

COSTA, Mrs. TORRES of California, Mr. GOMEZ, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. PANETTA, Mr. COX of California, Mr. TED LIEU of California, Ms. 

SA ́NCHEZ, Ms. MATSUI, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. SPEIER, and Mr. 

RUIZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 13507 Van Nuys Boulevard in Pacoima, California, as the ‘‘Ritchie Valens Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1253 IH

1 SECTION 1. RITCHIE VALENS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 13507 Van Nuys Boulevard in 

4 Pacoima, California, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Ritchie Valens Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Ritchie Valens Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# Introduction

# Changes for 2024

# Noxious-weed Seeds Under FSA

# AL

# AK

# AZ

# AR

# CA

# CO

# CT

# DC

# DE

# FL

# GA

# HI

# ID

# IL

# IN

# IA

# KS

# KY

# LA

# ME

# MD

# MA

# MI

# MN

# MS

# MO

# MT

# NE

# NV

# NH

# NJ

# NM

# NY

# NC

# ND

# OH

# OK

# OR

# PA

# RI

# SC

# SD

# TN

# TX

# UT

# VT

# VA

# WA

# WI

# WV

# WY

# Appendix A

# Appendix B

# image1.jpeg
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6138

KEENAN M. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus MRS. LAROCK, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-04-608) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 6, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keenan M. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Keenan M. Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Bivens *action without prejudice for failure to pay the initial partial filing fee required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(b)(1)(A) (2000). The district court ordered Williams to make a partial payment under the PLRA within thirty days after its order of November 29, 2004. On January 18, 2005, not having received the partial payment, the district court dismissed Williams’ action. On appeal, Williams argues that he followed the proper procedures to authorize the prison officials to debit his PLRA payment from his inmate account and remit the payment to the district court. Williams had, in fact, timely filed the appropriate consent form to allow prison officials to withdraw the amount of the PLRA payment from his inmate account and forward it to the district court, and the prison’s inmate account transaction statement shows Williams’ inmate account contained adequate funds to make the partial payment on the date it was due and for two weeks preceding the due date. However, prison officials did not deduct the initial p artial PLRA payment from his inmate account until January 4, 2005. The district court’s docket reveals that the payment was received and entered on January 19, 2005.- 3 - Because it appears that the untimeliness of Williams’ initial partial PLRA payment was through no fault of his own, we vacate the district court’s order dismissing his action and remand this case for further proceedings. 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. VACATED AND REMANDED
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. READE MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

No. 456.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 9, 1939.

Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, and Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent ordered to cease and desist from doing certain things and to take certain affirmative action, on petition for enforcement of order of Labor Board.
# C_2012326EN.01039301.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/391 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/391

---

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

TITLE I

DIGNITY

DIGNITY

Article 2

Right to life

1.   Everyone has the right to life.

2.   No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

---
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1
 
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 
                     PATRIOT AMERICAN HOSPITALITY, INC. AND
                          WYNDHAM INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                                 (in thousands)
 
<TABLE>   
<CAPTION>
                                           Year       Year     Year   Inception
                                           Ended     Ended    Ended    Through
                                         12/31/98   12/31/97 12/31/96 12/31/95
                                         ---------  -------- -------- ---------
<S>                                      <C>        <C>      <C>      <C>
Earnings:
 (Loss) income before minority
  interest.............................. $(112,508) $ 4,142  $44,813   $7,064
 Add back: fixed charges................   272,215   53,093    7,471       89
                                         ---------  -------  -------   ------
                                         $ 159,707  $57,235  $52,284   $7,153
                                         =========  =======  =======   ======
Fixed Charges:
 Interest expense, including
  amortization of deferred loan costs... $ 260,103  $50,531  $ 7,380   $   89
 Capitalized interest...................    12,112    2,562       91      --
                                         ---------  -------  -------   ------
                                         $ 272,215  $53,093  $ 7,471   $   89
                                         =========  =======  =======   ======
Ratio:                                        0.59     1.08     7.00    80.37
                                         =========  =======  =======   ======
</TABLE>
# C_2012326EN.01033701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

A.   DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

18.   Declaration in relation to the delimitation of competences

Declaration in relation to the delimitation of competences

The Conference underlines that, in accordance with the system of division of competences between the Union and the Member States as provided for in the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.

When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence. The latter situation arises when the relevant EU institutions decide to repeal a legislative act, in particular better to ensure constant respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. The Council may, at the initiative of one or several of its members (representatives of Member States) and in accordance with Article 241 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, request the Commission to submit proposals for repealing a legislative act. The Conference welcomes the Commission's declaration that it will devote particular attention to these requests.

Equally, the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting in an Intergovernmental Conference, in accordance with the ordinary revision procedure provided for in Article 48(2) to (5) of the Treaty on European Union, may decide to amend the Treaties upon which the Union is founded, including either to increase or to reduce the competences conferred on the Union in the said Treaties.

---
Opinion filed February 16, 2017

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-16-00039-CR

___________

RANDALL SHAYNE JUSTICE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR21456

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Randall Shayne Justice, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. 

In the motion, Appellant asks this court to withdraw his notice of appeal and dismiss

the appeal. The motion is signed by both Appellant and his counsel in accordance 

with TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2.

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

February 16, 2017 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
# C_2016202EN.01017801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/178 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/178

---

Article 302

(ex Article 259 TEC)

(ex Article 259 TEC)

1.   The members of the Committee shall be appointed for five years The Council shall adopt the list of members drawn up in accordance with the proposals made by each Member State. The term of office of the members of the Committee shall be renewable.

2.   The Council shall act after consulting the Commission. It may obtain the opinion of European bodies which are representative of the various economic and social sectors and of civil society to which the Union's activities are of concern.

---