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, James M. Vanderhider, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 of Belden & Blake
Corporation;  2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures
to be designed under 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 report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in
this 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 most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which 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. Date:November 12, 2010 By: /s/ James M. Vanderhider

James M. Vanderhider, President and Chief Financial Officer and Director  2
October 2, 2015

Mr. William Taek Lim

10472 San Andreas Drive

Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737

Dear Mr. Lim :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your June 8, 2015

, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2828 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requ ested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
#### James ROWE, Sr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20190.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 1963.

Wesley R. Asinof, Charles R. Smith, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.

Bobby C. Milam, Robert D. Feagin, III, Asst. U. S. Attys., Charles L. Good-son, U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a conviction on three counts of a four-count indictment for violation of the liquor laws, appellant makes a strong contention that there was no evidence submitted to the jury to the effect that the liquor that was purchased failed to have the required revenue stamps affixed to it. While the Government can point to no evidence expressly stating that there were no stamps affixed to the whiskey, it contends that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant the jury's inferring that no stamps had been affixed. The most persuasive is that the purchases were made for $5.50 a gallon, whereas the stamps themselves would have cost $10.50 a gallon.

We think it is not necessary to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury’s finding of a verdict of guilty as to these two counts, *28because we conclude that there is unquestionably ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict of guilt as to the fourth count. Since the sentence of 18 months falls within the maximum permissible for a single count, the sentence will not be disturbed even though there might be error in connection with one or more counts. Walker v. United States, 5 Cir., 285 F.2d 52, 60; Hall v. United States, 5 Cir., 286 F.2d 676, fn. 16, p. 680, cert. denied 366 U.S. 910, 81 S.Ct. 1087, 6 L.Ed.2d 236.

The judgment is affirmed.
IV 

House Calendar No. 5 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 48 

[Report No. 114–5] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 351) to provide for expedited 

approval of exportation of natural gas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 26, 2015 

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 351) to provide 

for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 351) to provide for expedited approval of exportation of 

4 natural gas, and for other purposes. All points of order 

5 against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 

6 be considered as read. All points of order against provi7 sions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 48 RH 

1 be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amend2 ment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 

3 except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and con4 trolled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

5 Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion 

6 to recommit. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 5 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 48 

[Report No. 114–5] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 351) 

of natural gas, and for other purposes. to provide for expedited approval of exportation 

JANUARY 26, 2015 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,633
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,566
<ALLOWANCES>                                       525
<INVENTORY>                                     13,963
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,011
<PP&E>                                         116,018
<DEPRECIATION>                                  55,301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 167,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,326
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   167,224
<SALES>                                        153,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               153,914
<CGS>                                           98,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,763
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,076
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,425
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,513
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,912
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,912
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.12
        

</TABLE>
Animal and Plant

Health Inspection

Service

Veterinary Services

Strategy and Policy

Live Animal Imports

4700 River Road

Unit 39

Riverdale, MD 20737

(301) 851-3000

 January 14, 2021

Notice: Guidance Regarding Update to Equine Testing During Import

Quarantine

USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Veterinary Services 

(VS) updated the testing protocol for horses imported into the United States. 

Effective January 25, 2021, the updated VS Guidance 13407.2, Testing of Equidae 

During Import Quarantine, will apply and be enforced at all import quarantine 

facilities. 

 

Imported horses must test negative to official tests for dourine, glanders, equine 

piroplasmosis, and equine infectious anemia to qualify for release from import 

quarantine in accordance to Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR) Part 

93.308.

Under the updated VS Guidance 13407.2, horses with non-negative test results for

dourine, glanders and equine piroplasmosis may extend quarantine up to twentyeight (28) days to be retested accordingly 1 . Extended stays are subject to the

quarantine facilities’ space availability and all fees incurred will be at the expense 

of the importer of record. Any horse with confirmed non-negative test results after 

twenty-eight (28) days will be refused entry. Horses refused entry must be either 

exported out of the United States within ten (10) days of refusal notification or 

humanely euthanized. 

Only horses imported on or after January 25, 2021, will be tested in accordance to 

VS Guidance 13407.2. Any horses imported before this date will be tested in 

accordance to VS Guidance 13407.1, dated January 26, 2018. 

USDA encourages all stakeholders to review and share the testing guidance for 

understanding.

For further information please visit the USDA APHIS VS Live Animal Imports

website or contact Live Animal Imports at (301) 851-3300. 

1 The current protocol for horses testing non-negative for equine infectious anemia remains unchanged.
Exhibit 10.8



October 24, 1997


Mr. William J. Callahan
620 Northwood Drive
Iowa City, Iowa  52245


Dear Bill:

On behalf of XATA Corporation, I am pleased to offer you the position of Chief
Operating Officer. The primary responsibility of the position are detailed in
the enclosed job description. The terms of our offer are as follows:

----------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
1.  BASE SALARY:        1.  $4,615.39 paid bi-weekly. Annually equals $120,000.
----------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
2.  COMMUTE EXPENSES    2.  XATA will provide expense coverage for travel and
                            lodging in Minnesota during your commuting period.
                            It is our desire that you relocate to this area at
                            your earliest convenience.  You will provide a
                            budget for expected commuting expense for our
                            approval.
----------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
3.  STOCK OPTIONS:      3.  In consideration for signing the XATA EMPLOYMENT
                            AGREEMENT, you will be granted 25,000 stock options
                            per the terms of the current option plan.  These
                            options will vest over a period of three years and
                            terminates in five (5) years.
----------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
4.  XATA MANAGEMENT     4.  $7,500 per quarter or $30,000 annually can be earned
    INCENTIVE PLAN:         at 100% performance for achieving key financial
                            objectives as defined on the attached document.
----------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
5.  BENEFITS:           5.  Will be provided per the terms of XATA's standard
                            benefit plan.

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

<PAGE>


In the event that there is a change of control in the ownership of XATA
Corporation and the change of control results in a condition that is not
favorable to you for continued employment, your options will immediately vest
and must be purchased within ninety (90) days.

We would like you to start with XATA no later than November 1, 1997. Please let
us know at your earliest convenience if this is possible.

We believe you will be a major contributor in helping XATA capture the
opportunity we have. We look forward to your acceptance of this offer and the
opportunity to work with you. Please indicate that these terms are agreeable to
you by your signature in the space provided below.

Sincerely,



 /s/  Dennis R. Johnson                 /s/ William J. Callahan
Dennis R. Johnson                       ----------------------------------------
President & CEO                                   William J. Callahan

DRJ/drj

enclosures:  XATA Benefits Booklet
             Employment Agreement
             XATA Management Incentive Plan
             Job Description
# C_2019328EN.01007702.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/77

---

Order of the General Court of 11 July 2019 — Microsemi Europe and Microsemi v Commission

(Case T-227/18) (1)

(2019/C 328/87)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.

---
May 11, 2001

23641

#### State v. Stephenson

Affirmed
20145

#### State v. Todd

Affirmed
Certification of Chief Executive Officer
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dayton Superior Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    [Omitted]4.
    
    [Omitted]5.
    
    [Omitted]
 April 1, 2009
    
    /s/ Eric R. ZimmermanEric R. ZimmermanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10483 Conference Calendar

LEROY WAFER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BILL LONG; DALLAS COUNTY, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CV-621-T

- - - - - - - - - - February 21, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Leroy Wafer, Texas prisoner # 289279, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. He has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The motion for leave to appeal IFP is GRANTED. No initial partial filing fee is required. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). Wafer shall make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his account.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of WaferNo. 96-10483 - 2 - is directed to forward payments from his prisoner account to the clerk of the district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10 until the filing fee of $105 is paid. See id. Wafer argues that the district court erred in dismissing his § 1983 action pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). We have reviewed the record and found no error in the reasoning of the district court. See Wafer v. Long , No. 3:96-CV621-T (N.D. Tex. March 29, 1996). Wafer’s appeal is without arguable merit and, thus, frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Wafer is cautioned that any future frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Wafer is cautioned further to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
IFP GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Homero CONDE-BRAVO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41666.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*461Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Homero Conde-Bravo (Conde) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegally reentering the United States after deportation. He argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Conde acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. *Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).

For the first time on appeal, Conde argues that the district court erred in imposing his sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme, in violation of *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756-57, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). He asserts that this court should review his claim de novo and that the error is “structural,” but he concedes that under circuit precedent this court reviews the argument for plain error because he did not raise it below. *See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 267, — L.Ed.2d. - (2005). Conde concedes that he cannot show, as required by *Valenzuelar-Quevedo,*that the district court would likely have sentenced him differently under an advisory sentencing scheme. Similarly, there is no indication from the court’s remarks at sentencing that the court would have imposed a sentence below the appropriate guideline range. Thus, Conde has not met his burden to show that the district court’s imposition of a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme was plain error. *See ValenzuelaQuevedo,*407 F.3d at 733; *see also United States v. Bringier,*405 F.3d 310, 317 n. 4 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 264, — L.Ed.2d - (2005). Accordingly, Conde’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
EX-23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Exhibit 23.1


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8’s of ECO2 Plastics, Inc. (formerly known as ITEC Environmental Group, Inc.) previously filed on September 28, 2007 (SEC File # 333-146394), January 23, 2008 (SEC File # 333-148821) and March 31, 2008 (SEC File # 333-150002) of our report dated
March 19, 2009 on the financial statements of ECO2 Plastics, Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for each of the years then ended.





SALBERG & COMPANY, P.A.


Boca Raton, Florida


August 18, 2009
21104

#### Meyer v. Meyer

Affirmed
#### State v. Miller

18023

1/18/95

Affirmed