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/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 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: March 30, 2006
    By:

/s/ James M. VanderhiderJames M. Vanderhider,
President and 
Chief Financial Officer
 23
#### Harold Shelton JOHNSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE *of*Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12318.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 17, 1956.

Primus C. Wade, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

J.ONES, Presiding Judge.

Defendant Harold Shelton Johnson was charged by an information filed in the Municipal Criminal Court, of the City of Tulsa with operating a motor'vehicle on a public highway while under, the influence of intoxicating liquor, was tried, convicted and sentenced to serve 10 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $100 and has appealed.

The proof of the State showed that the defendant ran a stop light at the. intersection of Admiral and Peoria, streets in the City of Tulsa and collided with an automobile being driven by one Troy Yocham. Although proof of defendant’s intoxication was not strong, we cannot say from an examination of the record that -there- was an absence of such proof.' The State’s proof showed defendant was quite disturbed over the welfare of the occupants of the Yocham automobile, but it also *798showed that defendant’s breath- smelled strongly of alcohol and one of the’witnesses was emphatic in stating that the accused was intoxicated. The accused himself admitted on cross-examination that he had drunk about five glasses of beer immediately before the collision occurred.

No brief has been filed on behalf of the accused.

Affirmed.

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 11
CSB BANCORP, INC.
EXHIBIT 11
STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS                   **Three Months Ended** **Six Months Ended**  **June 30,** **June 30,**  **2004** **2003** **2004** **2003****Basic Earnings Per Share**                Net income $606,490  $571,614  $1,127,941  $1,169,446 Weighted averagecommon shares  2,644,350   2,634,732   2,644,350   2,633,982                  **Basic EarningsPer Share** $0.23  $0.21  $0.43  $0.44                  **Diluted Earnings Per Share**                Net income $606,490  $571,614  $1,127,941  $1,169,446 Weighted averagecommon shares  2,644,350   2,634,732   2,644,350   2,633,982 Weighted average effect ofassumed stock options  4,206   4,072   3,954   4,072                  Total  2,648,556   2,638,804   2,648,304   2,638,054                  **Diluted EarningsPer Share** $0.23  $0.21  $0.43  $0.44                  
43.
# C_2018161EN.01007101.xml

| 7.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/71

---

Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)

(Case T-191/18)

(2018/C 161/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the design at issue:

Design at issue: European Union design No 762851-0001

Design at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2018 in Case R 1203/2016-3

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and declare EU design No 762851-0001 null and void; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and declare EU design No 762851-0001 null and void;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b), of Regulation No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b), of Regulation No 6/2002;

| — | Infringement of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002.

---
# C_2020339EN.01001301.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Glimarpol v EUIPO — Metar (Pneumatic power tool)

(Case T-748/18) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a pneumatic power tool - Earlier design - Proof of disclosure - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002)

(2020/C 339/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glimarpol sp. z o.o. (Bytom, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Metar sp. z o.o. (Gliwice, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz and M. Mazurek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2018 (Case R 1615/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Metar and Glimarpol.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Glimarpol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Glimarpol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders Metar sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Metar sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.

---
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00117-CR

JOSEPH LEO STREHL, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 4th District Court

Rusk County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR15-075

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Our review of the court reporter’s record in this case indicates that volume five contains 

“sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, passport number, 

social security number, tax identification number or similar government-issued personal 

identification number.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10 (a)(1). Volume five of the reporter’s record includes 

social security numbers. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unless a court orders otherwise, an electronic or 

paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive 

data.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(b).

Rule 9.10(f) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper 

form or electronic form, without redaction.” TEX. R. APP. P. 9.10(f). Therefore, because the court 

reporter’s record contains sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in 

accordance with Rule 9.10(f), to seal volume five of the electronically filed reporter’s record in 

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: December 15, 2015
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ladayton WILLIAMS, also known as Daydemond, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-60011.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 20, 2005.

*846Charles Wiley Spillers, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark Kevin Horan, Horan & Horan, Grenada, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ladayton Williams appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. Williams argues that his sentence violates *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because the district court applied a sentence enhancement for possession of a firearm that was neither admitted nor found by a jury.

In *Booker,*the Supreme Court applied its holding in *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), to the federal sentencing guidelines and reaffirmed that “[a]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Court also excised 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1) of the Sentencing Reform Act, rendering the federal sentencing guidelines effectively advisory. *Id.*at 764-65.

Williams preserved a *Booker*issue for appeal by objecting in the district court based on *Blakely. See United States v. Pineiro,*410 F.3d 282, 285 (5th Cir.2005). The Government does not contest Williams’s assertion that he did not admit the facts necessary for the firearm enhancement, and it concedes that error occurred because the sentence was based on a mandatory application of the sentencing guidelines. The Government also concedes that it cannot meet its burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that error was harmless. We agree and VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing. *See Pineiro,*410 F.3d at 287.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

 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.
# C_2019238EN.01001601.xml

| 15.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 May 2019 — Dentsply De Trey v EUIPO — IDS (AQUAPRINT)

(Case T-312/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark AQUAPRINT - Earlier national word marks AQUACEM and national unregistered marks AQUACEM and AQUASIL - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action for passing off - No misrepresentation)

(2019/C 238/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dentsply De Trey GmbH (Konstanz, Germany) (represented by: S. Clark, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene, J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: IDS SpA (Savone, Italy) (represented by: M. Andreolini and F. Andreolini, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 February 2018 (Case R 1438/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Dentsply De Trey and IDS

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dentsply De Trey GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dentsply De Trey GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018

---
3/11/2014 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant | usec.com

http://www.usec.com/gaseous-diffusion/paducah-gdp 1/2

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, Kentucky, is the only U.S.-owned

uranium enrichment facility in the United States.

Owned by the U.S. Department of Energy, it is leased and operated by the United

States Enrichment Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of USEC Inc.

The plant employs more than 800 people. From the 1960s to 2013, it produced

low-enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants in the United

States and around the world.

The plant was opened in 1952 as part of a U.S. government program to produce

highly enriched uranium to fuel military reactors and produce nuclear weapons.

Enrichment at Paducah originally was limited to low levels, and the plant served as

a "feed facility" for other defense plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Piketon,

Ohio, where the enriched uranium was processed.

That mission changed in the 1960s, when Paducah, along with its sister plant in

Piketon, began to enrich uranium for use in commercial nuclear reactors to

generate electricity.

In May 2001, USEC completed a plan to consolidate its uranium enrichment

operations at Paducah. In June 2002, transfer and shipping operations at the

Piketon plant were also consolidated at Paducah. USEC ceased enrichment at

Paducah in 2013. The company's employees are now preparing the plant's

production buildings and other facilities for return to the U.S. Department of

Energy.

Key Facts

Federal Site Acreage: 3,425

Gaseous Diffusion Plant Acreage: 750

Total Number of Buildings: 161

Process Buildings: 4
3/11/2014 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant | usec.com

http://www.usec.com/gaseous-diffusion/paducah-gdp 2/2

Process Building Dimensions: 1,100 ft. long, 970 ft. wide, 90 ft.

high

Process Building Acreage Under

Roof:

74 acres

Number of Enrichment Stages: 1,760

Peak Design Power Capacity: 3,040 megawatts

Largest Process Motor: 3,300 horsepower

Water Utilization: 26 million gallons per day

Number of Control Instruments: 85,000

Miles of Process Piping: 400 (approximately)

Miles of Roadway: 19

Miles of Railroad: 9

Miles of Perimeter Fence: 5 miles

Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Nuclear power is a vital part of the

world's energy mix. Find out how the

uranium fuel that powers the world's

nuclear reactors is mined and

processed in several important steps

that make up the nuclear fuel cycle.
# C_2018123EN.01002501.xml

| 9.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/25

---

Action brought on 31 January 2018 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)

st

(Case T-54/18)

(2018/C 123/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fashion Energy Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller, F. Togo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark 1st AMERICAN — Application for registration No 8 622 078

Trade mark at issue:

st

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 in Case R 693/2017-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | stay proceedings pursuant to Art. 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until final and binding decision has been taken on the request for partial revocation against opposition mark EUTM 005066113; |
| --- | --- |

—

stay proceedings pursuant to Art. 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until final and binding decision has been taken on the request for partial revocation against opposition mark EUTM 005066113;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem;

audi alteram partem

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 933 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 933

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      December 1, 2016.
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For further expenses of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (hereafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Committee'') for the One Hundred Fourteenth 
Congress, there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House of 
Representatives not more than $800,000.

SEC. 2. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized by the 
Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 
directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in accordance 
with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House Administration.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2020339EN.01001101.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — BRF and SHB Comércio e Indústria de Alimentos v Commission

(Case T-429/18) (1)

(Public health - Specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption - Amendment of the lists of third country establishments from which imports of specified products of animal origin are permitted, regarding certain establishments from Brazil - Article 12(4)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Comitology - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Powers of the Commission - Equal treatment - Proportionality)

(2020/C 339/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: BRF SA (Itajaí, Brazil) and SHB Comércio e Indústria de Alimentos SA (Itajaí) (represented by: D. Arts and G. van Thuyne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis, B. Eggers and B. Hofstötter, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 of 8 May 2018 amending the lists of third country establishments from which imports of specified products of animal origin are permitted, regarding certain establishments from Brazil (OJ 2018 L 118, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BRF SA and SHB Comércio e Indústria de Alimentos SA to pay the costs of the Commission, including those pertaining to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BRF SA and SHB Comércio e Indústria de Alimentos SA to pay the costs of the Commission, including those pertaining to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.

---
# C_2018328EN.01002501.xml

| 17.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 24 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against EK, AH and CX

(Case C-340/18)

(2018/C 328/32)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

EK, AH and CX

By order of the Court of 3 July 2018, the case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice.

---