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 report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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
  (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.
  By:
    
    /s/ LEE E. BECKELMANName:
    
    Lee E. BeckelmanTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### Frances Thomas, Appellant, *v.*Holy Trinity et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 11, 1959.

*Jules D. Barnett*for appellant.

*Charles T. Beavers*and *Wilbert Eric Morris*for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

While the opening of the default cannot in the circumstances be treated as an abuse of discretion, the court should have directed that the judgment stand as security.

The order should be modified to direct that the judgment entered stand as security, and as modified affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant.

Concur — Steuer, J. P., Hoestadter and Aurelio, JJ.

Order modified, etc.
**Exhibit 3.3**

 

*STATE OF DELAWARE*

*SECRETARY OF STATE*

*DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS*

*FILED 04:00 PM 06/05/2001*

*010269450 – 2341260*

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

**OF**

**CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**LANDRY’S SEAFOOD RESTAURANTS, INC.**

 

Landry’s Seafood Restaurants, Inc., a corporation organized and existingunder and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “Corporation”), does hereby certify: 

 

The amendment to the Corporation’s Certificate of Incorporation set forth in the following resolution approved by the Corporation’s Board ofDirectors and stockholders was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Sections 242 and 222 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware: 

 

“RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of the corporation be amended by striking Article FIRST in its entirety andreplacing therefor: 

 

‘FIRST: The name ofthe corporation is Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. (the ‘Corporation’).’ ” 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized officer on June 5, 2001.
<PAGE>   1



                                    AMENDMENT
                             TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


         THIS AMENDMENT amends as of September 25, 1996 the Management Agreement
("Agreement") made May 20, 1991, as amended, by and between Philadelphia
Indemnity Insurance Company ("PIIC") and Maguire Insurance Agency, Inc.
("Maguire").

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, Maguire performs a variety of services for PIIC under the
         Agreement;

         WHEREAS, PIIC and Maguire desire to modify certain terms of the
         Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, PIIC and Maguire, intending to be legally bound hereby,
         agree as follows:

         1.       It is acknowledged that the compensation for services provided
                  by Maguire, beginning in 1994 and for each year thereafter,
                  per "Amendment No. 1 to Management Agreement" were based upon
                  budgeted expenses. To the extent these expenses deviate
                  materially from actual expenses the parties agree to
                  reasonably adjust the compensation.

         2.       The due date for premium remittance from Maguire to PIIC as
                  stated in Paragraph 2J of the Agreement shall be 90 days after
                  the end of the month for the "All Other Class" of business.

         3.       The term of the Agreement as stated in Paragraph 8 is extended
                  for an additional five (5) years.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands
and seals as of the day and year first above written.

                                PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

                                By:      /s/ James J. Maguire
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         James J. Maguire, President

                                Attest:  /s/ Sean S. Sweeney
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Sean S. Sweeney, Senior Vice President


                               MAGUIRE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC

                                By:      /s/ James J. Maguire
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         James J. Maguire, President

                               Attest:  /s/ Sean S. Sweeney
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Sean S. Sweeney, Senior Vice President
|   | 1. | The      Annual Report of SQM on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31,      2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange      Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents,      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of SQM. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Ricardo Ramos R.                                                                               |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name:  Ricardo      Ramos R.                                                             |
| Title:  Chief      Financial Officer and Business Development Senior Vice      President |
| Date:      June 30, 2010                                                                           |

----
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                  ------------

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") of Community National Bancorporation (the
"Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, the undersigned officer of the of the Registrant hereby certifies, to
the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.

Date:  March 31, 2006              By: /s/ Theron G. Reed
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Theron G. Reed
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
                                        (principal executive, financial and
                                         accounting officer
#### Gary E. Bogel, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent. (And Three Other Related Claims.)

Crew III, J.

Appeals from three orders of the Court of Claims (Orlando, J.), entered November 22, 1989, February 28, 1990 and March 7, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted the State’s motions to dismiss the claims.

Claimant is an inmate at a State correctional facility. He has filed four claims against the State seeking damages for personal injuries and loss of property. All four claims were *494filed with the Clerk of the Court of Claims and were, served upon the Attorney-General by regular mail. The State successfully moved to dismiss each of the four claims for improper service and these appeals ensued.

The sole issue before us is whether service by regular mail is sufficient under Court of Claims Act § 11 (a), which provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he claim * * * shall be filed with the clerk of the court; and ** * * a copy shall be served * * * by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the attorney general”*(emphasis supplied). Service of the claims upon the Attorney-General by ordinary mail was insufficient to acquire jurisdiction over the State and they were, therefore, properly dismissed *(cf., Baggett v State of New York,*124 AD2d 969, 970).

Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Levine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the orders are affirmed, without costs.
Subsector Solutions Corporation ('SSC') requests an exemption from 

the regulations described in the attachment as provided in Section 

333 of P.L. 112-95 in reference to 49 USC Â§ 44704. SSC intends on 

using drones like: Phantom 3 Professional, Parrot AR.Drone 2.0, and 

ARRIS X-Speed FPV 250.

SSC operates a ISP subsidiary that leverages line of sight radio 

services. Leveraging unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) SSC will 

perform line of sight validation, tower inspection, and surveying in 

a safe manner. SSC will only operate UAS in compliance with all 

federal, state and local regulations, the UAS manufacturerâ€TMs 

recommendations, SSC standard operating procedures, UAS industry 

standards and the terms of the exemption (if granted).

Please contact me if SSC has overlooked requesting exemption from 

any regulation that it will need to conduct operations as described 

so that we may modify our petition. We also request the opportunity 

to modify this petition to meet FAA approval as necessary. Thank you 

for your attention to this matter

and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Eric Fulton

CEO, Subsector Solutions Corporation

eric@tsi.io

406-220-2980
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. BILIRAKIS:
        H.R. 6367.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       This bill is enacted pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of 
     the United States Constitution (Clauses 12, 13, 14, 16, and 
     17) which grants Congress the power to raise and support an 
     Army; to provide and maintain a Navy; to make rules for the 
     government and regulation of the land and naval forces; to 
     provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; 
     and to exercise authority over all places purchased for the 
     erection of forts, magazines, dock-yards, and other needful 
     buildings.
```
# C_2011211EN.01002302.xml

| 16.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Psytech International v OHIM — Institute for Personality & Ability Testing (16PF)

(Case T-507/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark 16PF - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - No descriptive character - No signs which have become customary - No bad faith - Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) to (d) and Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 211/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Psytech International Ltd (Pulloxhill, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Phillips, Solicitor and N. Saunders, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervener before the General Court: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc. (Champaign, United States) (represented by: G. Hobbs QC and A. Chaudri, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2008 (Case R 1012/2007-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Psytech International Ltd and the Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Psytech International Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Psytech International Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.

1

---
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JOE FRANKLIN MULDROW, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0088 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2016-005720-002

 CR2016-005710-002

 CR2013-111024-001

The Honorable William R. Wingard, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Krista Wood

Counsel for Respondent

Joe Franklin Muldrow, Eloy

Petitioner

FILED 9-8-2022
STATE v. MULDROW

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Angela K. Paton, and Judge Peter 

B. Swann delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Joe Franklin Muldrow seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is 

petitioner’s first petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
# Grayson - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Mount Rogers Planning District Commission Executive Director Aaron Sizemore Email &#97;&#x73;i&#122;&#x65;m&#111;&#x72;e&#x40;&#x6d;&#114;&#x70;d&#99;&#x2e;o&#114;&#x67;The post Mount Rogers Planning District Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
EXHIBIT 31.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I,PAUL CHENG, certify that: 1.
        I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Castelle; 2.
        Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report; 3.
        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report; 4.
        The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 annual 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(s) 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 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 27, 2006
    
    By:        /s/PAUL CHENGPaul
        Cheng Chief
        Financial Officer    E-28
EXHIBIT  99.1

CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO
18  U.S.C.  SECTION  1350,
AS  ADOPTED  PURSUANT  TO
SECTION  906  OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002

In  connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PW Preferred Yield Fund
II,  L.P.  (the  "Partnership") for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
and  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  I,  Stephen  R.  Dyer, President and Director of
General  Equipment  Management  II,  Inc.,  general  partner of the Partnership,
hereby  certify  that:

1.     The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

2.     The  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

     By:     General  Equipment  Management  II,  Inc.
          Administrative  General  Partner

     By:     /s/  Stephen  R.  Dyer
          Stephen  R.  Dyer
          President  and  Director
          General  Equipment  Management  II,  Inc

Date:  November  14,  2002
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements and
in the related prospectuses of ANTEC Corporation listed below of our report
dated February 7, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of ANTEC Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2000:

         Registration Statement No. 333-58437 on Form S-3 ($115,000,000 4 1/2%
         Convertible Subordinated Notes and Common Stock)

         Registration Statement No. 33-71384 on Form S-8 (Amended and Restated
         Employee Stock Incentive Plan)

         Registration Statement No. 3371386 on Form S-8 (ANTEC Corporation
         Director Stock Option Plan)

         Registration Statement No. 3371388 on Form S-8 (ANTEC Corporation
         Employee Stock Purchase Plan)

         Registration Statement No. 3389704 on Form S-8 (ANTEC/Keptel Exchange
         Options)

         Registration Statement No. 333-11921 on Form S-8 (ESP Stock Plan)

         Registration Statement No. 333-12131 on Form S-8 (ANTEC Corporation
         Amended and Restated Employee Stock Incentive Plan)

         Registration Statement No. 333-19129 on Form S-8 (TSX Corporation 1996
         Second Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Compensation Program;
         TSX Corporation 1993 Amended and Restated Directors Stock Option Plan,
         As Amended; TSX Corporation 1994 W.H. Lambert Stock Option Agreement)

         Registration Statement No. 333-90559 on Form S-8 (Amended and Restated
         Employee Stock Purchase Plan)

         Registration Statement No. 333-90561 on Form S-8 (ANTEC Corporation
         1997 Stock Incentive Plan)

         Registration Statement No. 333-48666 on Form S-8 (ANTEC Corporation
         Employee Savings Plan, as amended March 30, 2000)

         Registration Statement No. 333-37032 on Form S-8 (ANTEC Corporation
         2000 Mid-Level Stock Option Plan)

         Registration Statement No. 333-37030 on Form S-8 (ANTEC Corporation
         2000 Stock Incentive Plan)

                                                    /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 2001