alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this quarterly report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our 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 the registrants second fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Stephen L. ClantonStephen L. ClantonChief Financial Officer
In contrast, the action underlying this writ petition is an 

interpleader action initiated by the attorney. In such an action, it is the 

attorney, not his client, who is the plaintiff. Thus, as the plaintiff, the 

attorney is a party to the action and has the right to appeal from any 

adverse final judgement. See NRAP 3A(a). Moreover, in an interpleader 

action, a final, appealable judgment is generally held to be one that grants 

the interpleader request, discharges the plaintiff from further liability, 

and adjudicates the claimants' competing interests in the funds placed 

with the court. See, e.g., Abex Corp. v. Ski's Enters., Inc., 748 F.2d 513, 

515 (9th Cir. 1984); Custom One—Hour Photo v. Citizens & S. Bank, 345 

S.E.2d 147, 148 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986); Scruggs, Millette, PA. v. Merkel & 

Cocke, 763 So. 2d 869, 872 (Miss. 2000); K & S Interests v. Tex. Am. 

Bank/Dallas, 749 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex. Ct. App. 1988); see generally 44B 

Am. Jur. 2d Interpleader § 81. Thus, in this case, petitioner has a right to 

appeal from the challenged April 3, 2015, order, which discharged 

petitioner and adjudicated the remaining non-defaulted claimants' claims 

to the interpleaded funds. Because the right to appeal is generally a plain, 

speedy, and adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief, NRS 34.160; 

NRS 34.330; Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 

Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008), we decline to consider this writ 

petition. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Saitta 

SURREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

I CACI 

Pickering 

2 

(0) 1947A sem 
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge 

Golightly & Vannah, PLLC 

Maupin, Cox & LeGoy 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 3 

NEVADA 

(0) I 947A 420.
# Vermont_county_differentials_20
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 4, 2020

No. 04-19-00710-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G.A.M, M.A.S.B. & G.E.E., children,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017PA02590

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

The en banc court has considered appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration. The 

motion is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.7.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 4th day of March, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
MEMORANDUM

TO: Trista Etzig; Project Manager, Specialty Crop Block Grant Program

FROM: Tom Jones; Manager, Marketing and Development Branch

DATE: October 20, 2014

RE: Request for Foreign Travel for AMS Agreement 12-25-B-ABCD

The XXX State Department of Agriculture (the Department) would like to amend the project 

entitled Trade Mission to South America for Specialty Crop Producers in AMS Agreement 

12-25-B-ABCD. Please see the detail below that describes the reason and extent of the 

changes to the project:

JUSTIFICATION:

The overall scope and budget amount of the project will remain the same; however, the 

project staff plans send two marketing specialists to Foreign Country ABC to build 

awareness of the state’s specialty crop industry for $9,720. These additional foreign travel 

funds will be diverted from the contractual cost category because we decided to update an 

existing informational packet on the state’s specialty crop industry rather than contract to 

create a new packet. This additional trip to Foreign Country ABC will help project staff build 

upon the previous successes of this project’s trips to the country, which will enhance the 

outcomes of the project.

DESCRIPTION:

The two marketing specialists will fly a U.S. carrier to Port City, Foreign Country ABC on 

December 6, 2014 and return on December 16, 2014 (10 days). All travel will comply with 

the state’s foreign travel policy and are broken down below:

The flights will be purchased through U.S. Carrier at $2,250 per person ($4,500).

The lodging rate for Port City is $180 per night for 9 nights per person ($1,620 x 2 = 

$3,240).

The Meals and Incidental Expense rate is $89 per day for 10 days per person ($890 x 2 = 

$1,780).

The marketing specialists will use taxis while in Port City to get to and from the airport 

(~$100 each way for $200).

XXX State Department of Agriculture

Division of Agriculture

Phone: (555) 222-2222

Email: DivisionofAg@XXX.gov
If you have any questions concerning this requested amendment, please feel free to contact 

me. If necessary, I will be more than happy to discuss and ratify this request to ensure that it 

meets the requirements of the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.

Sincerely,

X

Tom Jones

Manager
#### Stallard v. Consolidated Maui, Inc.

22603

02/26/2004

Denied

103 Hawai'i 468, 83 P.3d 731
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Vinod Gupta, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of *info*USA Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-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 thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which 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 effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report 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 recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: May 10, 2004     */s/ Vinod Gupta*   Vinod Gupta Chief Executive Officer
# ONClivtit IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN RE THE PETITION OF SHARON M.ANDERSON PR 21-0004 

# EZLED APR 1 3 2021 Bowen GreenwooO Clerk of Suprerne Court StFitR rvf Montana ORDER
Sharon M.Anderson has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the State Bar ofMontana after having been on emeritus status since April 2020. IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of Montana,Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice oflaw in the state ofMontana. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to Petitioner and to the State Bar ofMontana' DATED this J-

1, day ofApril, 2021. For the Court, By ChiefJustice 04/13/2021
Case Number: PR 21-0004
#### Pioneer Group et al., Petitioners, v State Division of Human Rights, on Complaint of Milton W. Foote, Respondent.

—Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs, in accordance with the following Memorandum: We find that there was substantial evidence supporting the State Division of Human Rights’ (SDHR) determination that petitioners unlawfully discriminated against complainant because he had been convicted of a crime *(see,*Executive Law § 296 [15]; Correction Law § 752; *see also, State Div. of Human Rights v Sorrento Cheese Co.,*115 AD2d 323).

*1042However, the order of SDHR must be modified to state that the award of back pay should be offset by any unemployment insurance benefits and employment-related income received by complainant during the period between his unlawful termination and the date on which he accepts or rejects petitioner Pioneer Group’s offer of employment *(see, Matter of Cosmos Forms v State Div. of Human Rights,*150 AD2d 442). In addition, the award to complainant for mental anguish, although supported by his testimony that he was depressed and had difficulty in eating and sleeping for a year after his termination, is reduced to $5,000 as the $10,000 awarded by SDHR was clearly excessive *(see, Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights,*160 AD2d 874, *as amended and lv denied Oct. 15, 1990; Matter of Cosmos Forms v State Div. of Human Rights, supra; Matter of Board of Educ. v State Div. of Human Rights,*109 AD2d 988; *see also, Matter of Almeter v State Div. of Human Rights,*133 AD2d 530), and the order of SDHR is modified accordingly. (Proceeding Pursuant to Executive Law § 298 Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
### NO. 07-03-0056-CR 07-03-0057-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D JULY 15, 2004

______________________________ SEAN KELLY FOSTER A/K/A SEAN KEL LY JOSEPH; JOSEPH SEAN FOSTER, APPELL ANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE CRI MINAL DIS TRICT CO URT OF JEF FERSON COU NTY; NO. 78161, 85290; H ONORABLE CH ARLES D. CAR VER, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS an d CAMPBELL, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPIN ION Pending before this Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss his appeal. Appellant and his attorne yboth have signed the document stating that appellant withdraws hisappeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2 (a). No dec isio n of t his Court h aving been delivere d to date, we gr ant the motion. Ac cor din gly, the appea l is dis missed. No motio n for reh earing will be enterta ined and o ur mandate will issue for

thwith. James T. Camp bell Jus tice Do not publ ish.
#### HELVERING, Com'r of Internal Revenue, v. COMAR OIL CO.

No. 11377.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 20, 1939.

*709Sewall Key and Ellis N. Slack, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Truman Post Young, Harold Lee Harvey, Hartley Pollock, Jr., and Thompson, Mitchell, Thompson & Young, all of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.

Before SANBORN and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SULLIVAN, District Judge.

THOMAS, Circuit Judge.

This appeal from a decision of the Board of Tax Appeals involves the income taxes of the respondent, Comar Oil Company, for the year 1929. The taxpayer is a corporation engaged in producing oil and gas. The taxes in dispute were imposed under the Revenue Act of 1928. Section 114(b) (3) of the Act, 45 Stat. 791, 26 U.S. C.A. § 114 note, provides: “In the case of oil and gas wells the allowance for depletion shall be 27% per centum of the gross income from the property during the taxable year. Such allowance shall not exceed 50 per centum of the net income of the taxpayer (computed without allowance for depletion) from the property, except that in no case shall the depletion allowance be less than it would be if computed without reference to this paragraph.”

The respondent contends that in determining the depletion allowance under this section of the statute, for the purpose of applying the 50 per cent limitation, intangible development expenses should not be deducted from “the gross income from the property” in arriving at “the net income of the taxpayer (computed without allowance for depletion) from the property.”

The Board of Tax Appeals sustained the respondent’s contention, and the Commissioner appeals.

A discussion of the question thus presented would at this time be superfluous. At the time this case was submitted our attention was called by counsel to the fact that two cases were then pending before the Supreme Court on certiorari in both of which this identical issue was involved. The cases referred to were Helvering, Commissioner v. Wilshire Oil Company, Inc., 60 S.Ct. 18, 84 L.Ed.-, and F. H. E. Oil Company v. Helvering, Commissioner, 60 S.Ct. 26, 84 L.Ed. -. Both of these cases were decided by the Supreme Court November 6, 1939; and the decisions were adverse to the contentions of the respondent in the present case. In both cases it was held that the Board of Tax Appeals erred in holding that the taxpayer need not deduct intangible development expenses in applying the 50 per cent limitation on depletion allowance. Those decisions are controlling, and they require a reversal of the order appealed from in this case.

The order of the Board of Tax Appeals is accordingly

Reversed.
standard] by . . . pointing out. . . that there is an absence of evidence to 

support the nonmoving party's case." (internal quotation omitted)). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Pi:H:11H 

cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge 

Geraldine Trice 

Smith Larsen & Wixom 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A .14e4
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeAbout UsNews & Notices
Volume 23 of Tholos Magazine Now Available
Articles include a highlight on a new agriculture exhibit at the U.S. Botanic Garden, a behind the scenes look at the Capitol Power Plant, an update on light fixture restoration in the Cannon House Office Building and more.
By AOC Staff | August 26, 2022
        
                  Image
    Tholos Volume 23, Summer 2022 - Cover

The latest edition of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) employee magazine, Tholos, is now available. Highlights include the articles below.

**USBG Highlight:** Cultivating a New Agriculture Exhibit at the U.S. Botanic Garden
	**Behind the Scenes:** 24 Hours at the Capitol Power Plant
	**Project Update:** Cannon Light Fixture Restoration
	**Employee Recognition:** Kudos to YouDownload Volume 23, or read the stories from this and previous issues on our blog.
          
    
      Recent Stories
Related Articles
            
          Public Notice

  U.S. Capitol Cherry Blossoms Map

On the U.S. Capitol campus, the AOC Capitol Grounds and Arboretum crew cares for groups of both Yoshino and Japanese flowering cherry trees.
    Public Notice

  Volume 27 of Tholos Magazine Now Available

Highlights include articles featuring the Architect's Citation Award winner, sustainability, summer internships and the U.S. Capitol Christmas Tree.
    Public Notice

  Six Tips for Sledding Safely on Capitol Hill

This winter, sections of the U.S. Capitol Grounds West Front may be open for community sledding during daylight hours (dawn to dusk).
    Public Notice

  FY 2023 Performance and Accountability Report Available

The Architect of the Capitol's Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2023 is now available online.
    
                      More News Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Winthrop
Apartment Investors Limited Partnership and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
 </LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER> 1                     

       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                 1,714,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                18,773,000
<DEPRECIATION>                       (2,110,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        21,698,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                               15,934,000
<COMMON>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             5,219,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          21,698,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       3,849,000
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          2,591,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       896,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          414,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      414,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             414,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           1,640.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                           1,640.00
        


</TABLE>
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply536Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Stephen E. McL... (not verified)PermalinkJuly 18, 2016 - 1:25pmHaving made multiple visits to the National Gallery of Art exhibit of Hellenistic Bronzes earlier this year, I gained an enhanced appreciation for the historical and cultural importance of such highly crafted artworks.  Also, I live in the neighborhood of the USMC Memorial in Arlington, which is another monumental bronze commemorating the service and sacrifice required to preserve Liberty.  I am thrilled to learn about the restoration of the Grant Memorial statues.  When I first photographed the memorial years ago, I felt so bad about the missing cavalryman's sword that I photoshopped it in.  I can hardly wait to examine and photograph the finished restoration.  Thank You!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
null

2015-04-17

514.63025

eng - Argued: 2015-04-17. Docket number: 3-13-0429
#### State v. Kuhia

15598

11/09/92

Denied

838 P.2d 861