alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, James Durward, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of UNITECH ENERGY CORP.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  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 quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to ensure  that
          material  information  relating  to  the  registrant,   including  its
          consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those
          entities,  particularly  during  the  period in which  this  quarterly
          report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented  in  this  quarterly   report  our  conclusions   about  the
          effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  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  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly  report  whether or not there  were  significant  changes in  internal
controls or in other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 21, 2005
/s/ James Durward
-------------------------
By: James Durward, CFO
# US, States, & Regions

# ARC Counties

# Source & Methodology
5

Attachment 1

The relief provided by Exemption No. 5549N is limited to the certificate holders listed
below 1 :

Airlines for America Alaska Airlines, Inc. American Airlines, Inc. and/or US Airways, Inc. Atlas Air, Inc. Federal Express Corporation Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. JetBlue Airways Corporation
Southwest Airlines Co. United Airlines, Inc
United Parcel Service Co.

Additional Certificate Holders 2 Air Transport International, Inc. Delta Air Lines, Inc. Frontier Airlines, Inc. MN Airlines, LLC (DBA Sun Country Airlines) Spirit Airlines, Inc. Virgin America, Inc.

1 Attachment amended February 1, 2017.

2 Additional certificate holders petitioned for exempti on through the following FAA Docket Numbers: Air Transport International Inc. FAA-2016-9085, Delta Air Lines, Inc. FAA-2016-8237, Frontier Airlines, Inc. FAA-2016-9441, MN Airlines, LLC (DBA Sun Country Airlines) FAA-2016-9136, and Spirit Airlines, Inc. FAA-2016-9440, Virgin America, Inc. (FAA-2017-0104).
ATTACHMENT F : Worksheets Used to Calculate Pesticide Industry (Tolerance Petitioner) Labor Costs



### NAICS:

541710

Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering,

and Life Sciences

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Natural Science

Managers Technical Soil and Plant

Scientists Biological

Scientists Biological

Technicians Clerical

Unloaded Hourly

Rate 1 = W $76.51 $78.17 $39.80 $33.90 $41.49 $22.97 $22.74

Benefits

Percentage 2 Lb =

B/W 46.3% 46.3% 46.3% 46.3% 46.3% 46.3% 46.3%

Benefits per hour B =

W*Lb $35.43 $36.20 $18.43 $15.70 $19.22 $10.64 $10.53

Loaded Hourly

Rate Wb = W

+ B =

W(1+Lb) $111.94 $114.37 $58.23 $49.60 $60.71 $33.61 $33.27

Overhead

Percentage 3 Lo =

OH/Wb 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH =

Wb*Lo $55.97 $57.19 $29.12 $24.80 $30.35 $16.80 $16.64

Fully Loaded

Hourly Rate Wf = Wb

+ OH

= W + B

+ OH $167.92 $171.56 $87.35 $74.40 $91.06 $50.41 $49.91

1. Data

Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics5_541710.htm May 2014

data

NAICS

- 541700 Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and

Life Sciences

Standard

Occupational

Codes:

Management: 11

- 0000, Management

Occupations

Natural

Science Managers 11

- 9121, Natural

Science ManagersTechnical: 19

- 0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science

Occupations Updated 4/08/14

Soil and Plant

Scientists: 19

- 1013, Soil and Plant

Scientists

Biological

Scientists: 19

- 1029, Biological Scientists, All Others

Biological

Technicians: 19

- 4021, Biological

Technicians

Clerical: 43

- 0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. The average for non farm, non federal civilian workers.

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition , EPA

- 452

- 02

- 001, January 2002, pg. 2

- 34. The loading fo

within the range of 20

- 70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
## THE STATE OF TEXAS
MANDATE

TO THE 402ND JUDICIA L DISTRICT COURT OF WOOD COUNTY, GREETIN GS:
Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 24th
day of July, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined;

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

DeBerry 3 Operating Company, LLC, Appellant

v.

Quitman Independent School District, et al., Appellees No. 06

- 15

- 00036

- CV

Trial Court No. T

- 3625

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed
for want of prosecution. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.
We further order that the appellant, DeBerry 3 Operating Company, LLC, pay all costs of
this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this
behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.
WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeal s, with
the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 8th day of October , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
# C_2020019EN.01003903.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/39

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the l’Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — flightright GmbH/Eurowings GmbH

(C-180/19) (1)

(2020/C 19/44)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---
Relative Poverty Rates in Appalachia, 2010–2014

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

A poverty rate is the ratio of the persons below the poverty level 

to the total number of persons for whom poverty status has been 

determined.The percent of the U.S. average is computed by 

dividing the county poverty rate by the national average and 

multiplying by 100. The map uses critical breaks such as the 

national average to organize the data into groups of common 

values. 

Map Created: March 2016

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2010–2014

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

150.0% - 284.3%

100.1% - 149.9% 

75.1% - 100.0% 

45.7% - 75.0%

Percent of the U.S. Average 

(Critical Breaks Classification) 

U.S. average = 15.6%

Appalachian average = 17.2%
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on September 19, 2013 

at 9:00 AM, or as soon thereafter as may be heard, at 1990 East Gettysburg Ave., 

Fresno, California. The following action will be considered at the hearing: 

Adopt proposed 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-hour Ozone Standard 

This action will affect sources in the counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, 

San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare. All interested persons desiring to be heard or to 

present evidence on this matter may appear at the hearing in person or via video 

teleconference at the District’s regional offices at 34946 Flyover Court, Bakersfield, 

California and at 4800 Enterprise Way, Modesto, California. The public hearing will be 

presented live via webcast at http://www.valleyair.org/webstreaming/webcastmeetings.htm. 

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the adopted plan will be submitted through the 

California Air Resources Board to the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

for incorporation as part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

proposed action would constitute a SIP revision. 

Interested persons may view the proposed plan at the District offices and on-line at: 

http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone_Plans.htm 

Copies of the proposed plan will be made available on and after August 20, 2013. To 

obtain copies of the documents, please call (559) 230-6100, or FAX your request to 

Mrs. Noemi Calderon at (559) 230-6064. You can receive news for rules and plans via 

email by subscribing to the District’s email notification list at: 

www.valleyair.org/lists/list.htm. 

Para solicitar servicios de interpretación en Español, por favor póngase en contacto con 

Maricela Velasquez al (559) 230-6000 por lo menos 7 días antes de le fecha de la 

reunión. 

Written comments should be addressed to Mrs. Anna Myers via mail at 1990 East 

Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, CA 93726, or via email at airqualityplans@valleyair.org. 

Written comments received by 5:00 PM on September 3, 2013 will be ensured 

consideration ahead of September 19, 2013 Governing Board public hearing. 

Comments may also be submitted at any time prior to or during the September 19, 2013 

hearing. For additional information, please contact staff at (559) 230-6100.
# C_2008171EN.01004301.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/43

---

Action brought on 7 May 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

(Case T-171/08)

(2008/C 171/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: U. Claus, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 2007 in the form of the letter of 7 March 2008 confirming approval of a payment in the amount of EUR 9 215,20 in the context of the ‘Traumatised refugees in the EU’ project by reason of ‘Grant Agreement JAI/2004/ERF/073’ in so far as the applicant was denied payment of more than EUR 9 215,20; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 2007 in the form of the letter of 7 March 2008 confirming approval of a payment in the amount of EUR 9 215,20 in the context of the ‘Traumatised refugees in the EU’ project by reason of ‘Grant Agreement JAI/2004/ERF/073’ in so far as the applicant was denied payment of more than EUR 9 215,20;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In May 2005, the applicant and the Commission signed an agreement on support for a project in connection with the European Refugee Fund. By letter of 30 October 2007, confirmed by letter of 7 March 2008, the defendant sent the applicant a revised calculation of the payment to the applicant that was still outstanding, in which part of the applicant's costs were deemed to be ineligible for support. The applicant brought the present action against the Commission's letter of 7 March 2008.

The applicant claims in support of its action that the contested decision infringes the duty to give reasons since the defendant changed the grounds for its decision on numerous occasions. In addition, there has been an infringement of the fundamental principle of the right to a fair hearing. Finally, the facts of the case were assessed in a manner incompatible with the regulations of the Grant Agreement and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

---
# C_2011160EN.01000701.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-20/09) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility of the action - Free movement of capital - Article 56 EC - Article 40 of the EEA Agreement - Public debt securities - Preferential tax treatment - Justification - Combating of tax evasion - Combating of tax avoidance)

2011/C 160/03

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Caeiros, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, C. Guerra Santos and J. Menezes Leitão, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 56 EC and 40 EEA Agreement — Public debt securities — Preferential tax treatment for securities issued by the Portuguese State

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | By providing under the exceptional tax regularisation scheme for assets not in Portuguese territory on 31 December 2004 (‘regime excepcional de regularização tributária de elementos patrimoniais que não se encontrem no território português em 31 de Dezembro de 2004’) established by Law No 39-A/2005 of 29 July 2005, for preferential tax treatment of public debt securities issued only by the Portuguese State, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By providing under the exceptional tax regularisation scheme for assets not in Portuguese territory on 31 December 2004 (‘regime excepcional de regularização tributária de elementos patrimoniais que não se encontrem no território português em 31 de Dezembro de 2004’) established by Law No 39-A/2005 of 29 July 2005, for preferential tax treatment of public debt securities issued only by the Portuguese State, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.

| 2. | The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.

1

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

| ii.   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March      31, 2009 | By:      /s/ Ron Morgan                   |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                | Ron      Morgan                           |
|                | Chief      Executive Officer              |
|                |                                      |
| March      31, 2009 | By:      /s/ Shannon L.  Greene           |
|                | Shannon      L. Greene                    |
|                | Chief      Financial Officer andTreasurer |
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 Quarterly  Report of UNITECH ENERGY CORP. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, James  Durward,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                                  /s/ James Durward
                                                  ---------------------------
Date: March 28, 2005                                  James Durward
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
# C_2013225EN.01006101.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/61

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2013 — Spar Österreichische Warenhandels v Commission

(Case T-405/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Concentrations - Markets for everyday consumer goods - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the internal market - Commitments - Manifest error of assessment - Right to be heard - Duty to state reasons)

2013/C 225/135

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Spar Österreichische Warenhandels AG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented initially by A.-H. Bischke, S. Brack and D. Bräunlich, then by A.-H. Bischke and D. Bräunlich, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and O. Weber, then by S. Noë and N. von Lingen, agents, and by M. Buntscheck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Billa AG (Wiener Neudorf, Austria) (represented by H. Wollmann, G. Drauz and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 23 June 2008 declaring the merger whereby Billa AG acquired sole control of Adeg österreich Handels AG compatible with the common market (Case COMP/M.5047 — REWE/ADEG), subject to the proposed commitments being met, pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Spar Österreichische Warenhandels AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Billa AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Spar Österreichische Warenhandels AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Billa AG.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6500
JOSEPH ALSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00277) Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 8, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joseph Alston seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2009193EN.01002202.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/22

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen v Commission

(Case T-550/08 R)

(Application for interim measures - Commission decision imposing a fine - Application for suspension of operation of the measure and interim relief (repayment of the fine already paid and waiver of a bank guarantee - No prima facie case and no urgency)

2009/C 193/35

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Dallmann and U. Krauthause, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Antoniadis and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/39181 — Candle waxes, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant, application to release the applicant from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for release from the obligation of payment, and other applications for interim measures

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---