alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CSB BANCORP, INC.
EXHIBIT 31.2
Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
I, Paula J. Meiler, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CSB Bancorp, Inc.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith 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 respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, 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 in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’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 thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 12, 2005                                            /s/  Paula J. Meiler   Paula J. Meiler   Senior Vice President and
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Ray GRANT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10069.

D.C. No. CR-03-00934-PGR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.*

Decided Oct. 18, 2005.

Emory T. Hurley, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas E. Haney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before NELSON, T.G., WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Michael Ray Grant appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). We dismiss the appeal.

Despite his knowing and unequivocal waiver of his right to appeal, Grant contends that the waiver should be excused because his sentence was imposed under mandatory sentencing guidelines declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court’s remedial opinion in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). This claim is foreclosed by *United States v. Cortez-Arias,*403 F.3d 1111, 1114 n. 8 (9th Cir.2005), as amended by 425 F.3d 547, 547-48 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that “a favorable change in the law does not entitle a defendant to renege on a knowing and voluntary guilty plea”).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 6

‐ 18

‐ 12 Phone Conversation with AF&PA

FROM: Marc Thomas

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

TO: Docket ID No. EPA

‐ HQ

‐ RCRA

‐ 2008

‐ 0329

On June 18, 2012, EPA, represented by Suzanne Rudzinski, Director of the Office of Resource

Conservation and Recovery, and Jim Berlow, Director of ORCR’s Program Implementation and

Information Division, had a phone conversation with Tim Hunt and Susan Bodine of the American Forest

and Paper Association (AF&PA). Below are the key issues raised during this call. EPA asked clarifying

questions.

1) Pulp and Paper WW Treatment Sludges:

‐ EPA should not be considering how sludges that are not burned are managed

‐ Rule does not apply to sludges except when burned; therefore we must only consider if discard

is occurring when burned

‐ Sludges are managed like analogous wastes such as bark; rule says analogous is the test

2) OCC Rejects (aka paper processing residuals)

‐ Should be considered for a regulatory determination or preamble language saying this material

appears to meet legitimacy

3) C&D Materials that are not initially clean but have been processed

‐ Industry has defined practices that should assure effective processing to meet legitimacy

‐ EPA should provide reg determination or preamble language saying this material appears to

meet legitimacy when processed in this manner

4) Treated Wood

‐ EPA should provide reg determination or preamble language saying this material appears to

meet legitimacy

5) Contained Gas:

‐ Industry concerned about generic impacts of RCRA waste finding on gases in pipes (not just

NHSM materials)

‐ Concerned with materials being transported by pipe for incineration/destruction by air

emission controls (maybe other destruction scenarios), not just energy recovery

‐ Only workable/defensible solution is to state that RCRA position is that contained gas is gas in

container when combusted
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1999, AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS REPORTED ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (178)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,699
<PP&E>                                           1,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (970)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,236
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,800
<OTHER-SE>                                       (191)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,609
<SALES>                                          1,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,521
<CGS>                                            1,069
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,069
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  39
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (453)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (70)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (383)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (383)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered January 2, 2013 

In The 

Court of Rppeato 

fifth rii5tritt of TECexa at atfa55 )11.4 

No. 05-12-01084-CR 

ANDRE DJUNA HUBERT, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F11-60671-M 

ORDER 

We GRANT Official Court Reporter Belinda G. Baraka's December 22, 2012 request for 

an extension of time to file the reporter's record. The reporter's record shall be due on or before 

January 31, 2013. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 1:30 PM

To: 'jprice17@live.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Petition for Exempiton: Mile Sky Productions, LLC (FAA-2015-0612)

May 18, 2015 

Dear Mr. Price: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0612). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make, model, and type (i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by June 1, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Harry J. Bailey, President and Chief Executive Officer of Ameriana Bancorp, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ameriana Bancorp;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue 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 otherfinancial 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 forestablishing 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 ensurethat 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 controlsand 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 internalcontrol 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 materiallyaffect, 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 ofthe 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 25, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 773 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 773

   To express support for recognition of June 2016 as National Orca 
                           Protection Month.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 2016

Mr. Heck of Washington (for himself, Mr. Kilmer, Ms. DelBene, Mr. Smith 
 of Washington, Mr. Larsen of Washington, and Mr. McDermott) submitted 
   the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   To express support for recognition of June 2016 as National Orca 
                           Protection Month.

Whereas orcas are an icon of the Pacific Northwest;
Whereas orcas are culturally and spiritually important to Indian tribes in the 
        Pacific Northwest;
Whereas the Puget Sound is home to three pods of Southern Resident orcas;
Whereas the Southern Resident orca population has declined dramatically over the 
        past 50 years;
Whereas the Southern Resident orcas are among the most contaminated marine 
        mammals in the world;
Whereas the Southern Resident orcas are threatened by declining chinook salmon 
        populations;
Whereas the Southern Resident orcas have been protected under the Endangered 
        Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) since 2005;
Whereas June 2016 has been recognized by the States of Washington and Oregon as 
        Orca Awareness Month; and
Whereas the Federal Government has an obligation to protect and restore the 
        Southern Resident orca population: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports recognition of 
National Orca Protection Month.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 22



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



1.

Fonix Systems Corporation, a Utah corporation, wholly owned by Fonix (merged into Fonix Corporation effective September 1, 1999)



2.

Fonix/AcuVoice, Inc., a Utah corporation, wholly owned by Fonix



3.

Fonix/Articulate, Inc., a Utah corporation, wholly owned by Fonix (merged into Fonix Corporation effective September 1, 1999)



4.

Fonix/Papyrus, Inc., a Utah corporation, wholly owned by Fonix



5.

Fonix UK Ltd, wholly owned by Fonix



6.

Fonix Sales, Korea Group, Ltd., wholly owned by Fonix



7.

LTEL Acquisition Corp., a Deleware Corporation, wholly owned by Fonix



8.

LTEL Holdings Corporation, a Georgia Corporation, wholly owned by LTEL Acquisition Corp.



9.

LecStar Telecom, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, wholly owned by LTEL Holdings Corporation



10.

LecStar DataNet, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, wholly owned by LTEL Holdings Corporation
# C_2019131EN.01004801.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/48

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2019 — Associazione Granosalus v Commission

(Case T-125/18) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Plant-protection products - Substance active ‘glyphosate’ - Renewal of inclusion in the annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 - Act not of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 131/55)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Associazione Nazionale Granosalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) (Foggia, Italy) (represented by: G. Dalfino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, D. Bianchi, G. Koleva and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 of 12 December 2017 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2017 L 333, p. 10).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is to be dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is to be dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to give a ruling on the applications for leave to intervene by Helm AG, Monsanto Europe NV/SA, Monsanto Company, Nufarm GmbH & Co., Nufarm, Albaugh Europe Sàrl, Albaugh UK Ltd, Albaugh TKI d.o.o. and Barclay Chemicals Manfuacturing Ltd. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to give a ruling on the applications for leave to intervene by Helm AG, Monsanto Europe NV/SA, Monsanto Company, Nufarm GmbH & Co., Nufarm, Albaugh Europe Sàrl, Albaugh UK Ltd, Albaugh TKI d.o.o. and Barclay Chemicals Manfuacturing Ltd.

| 3. | Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Associazione Nazionale GranoSalus — Liberi Cerealicoltori & Consumatori (Associazione GranoSalus) is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | Helm, Monsanto Europe, Monsanto, Nufarm GmbH & Co. KG, Nufarm, Albaugh Europe, Albaugh UK, Albaugh TKI and Barclay Chemicals Manufacturing are each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Helm, Monsanto Europe, Monsanto, Nufarm GmbH & Co. KG, Nufarm, Albaugh Europe, Albaugh UK, Albaugh TKI and Barclay Chemicals Manufacturing are each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.

---
# C_2019182EN.01003101.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — Rodriguez Prieto v Commission

(Affaire T-61/18) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - ‘Eurostat’ case - National criminal proceedings - No need to adjudicate - Request for assistance - Whistle-blower - Presumption of innocence - Action for damages and annulment)

(2019/C 182/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Amador Rodriguez Prieto (Steinsel, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, T. Martin and R. Garcia-Valdecasas y Fernandez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and R. Striani, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, primarily, compensation for the material and non-material damage which the appl cant alleges to have suffered and, in the alternative, annulment of the decision of the Commission of 28 March 2017 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the claims for damages; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the claims for damages;

| 2) | Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 28 March 2017 rejecting Mr Amador Rodriguez Prieto’s request for assistance; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 28 March 2017 rejecting Mr Amador Rodriguez Prieto’s request for assistance;

| 3) | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Rodriguez Prieto. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Rodriguez Prieto.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---
# C_2019432EN.01004801.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 October 2019 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)

(Case T-560/18) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a medical plaster - Disclosure of the earlier designs - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2019/C 432/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Atos Medical GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: K. Middelhoff, G. Schoenen and S. Biermann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Kramer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2018 (Case R 2216/2016-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Atos Medical and Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Atos Medical GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Atos Medical GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATIONS BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Education Management Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal quarter
ended March 31, 2010 on the date hereof (the Report), I, Edward H. West, President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify in such capacity, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company for the periods reflected therein.
 Date: May 11, 2010 By:
    
    /s/ Edward H. WestEdward H. West
President and Chief Financial Officer
  4
#### State v. Dinmore

20972

12/8/98

Affirmed
July 2, 2002

23949

#### State v. Villa

Affirmed