alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Thomas H. King, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Allied Holdings, 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, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring 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 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’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.      May 23, 2007  */s/ Thomas H. King*      *Date*  *Thomas H. King*    *Executive Vice President*
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. A-11797.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 16, 1953.

Gerald F. O’Brien, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

Plaintiff in error S. R. Smith, defendant below, was charged by information in the municipal criminal court of the city of Tulsa, Tulsa county, Oklahoma, with the offense of operating a motor vehicle over and upon the public highway in said county at a point in the 1700 block on South Main Street in the city of Tulsa while under the influence of intoxicating liquor all in violation of Title 47, § 93, O.S.1951. The defendant stood trial, was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $94 and costs in the amount of $6 from which judgment and sentence an appeal was perfected to this court.

Appeal was filed herein on December 23, 1952, and under the rules of this court brief in support of the petition in error should have been filed within 60 days. The case was set for oral argument on January 28, 1953. No appearance was made in behalf of the appeal and no briefs were filed herein, and on said last date the matter was submitted on the record. It has repeatedly been held that where defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and no briefs are filed or argument presented, Criminal Court of Appeals will examine the evidence, not to discover errors in the admission or rejection of testimony but only to ascertain if it supports the verdict, and examine the pleadings, instructions, and judgment, and, if no material error is apparent, judgment will be affirmed. Woods v. State, 92 Okl.Cr. 53, 220 P.2d 463; Whitlow v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 2, 184 P.2d 253; Long v. State, 84 Okl.Cr. 445, 184 P.2d 119; Parks v. State, 83 Okl.Cr. 70, 173 P.2d 234. An examination of the record herewith presented discloses no funda*480mental error in the same. The judgment and sentence of the municipal criminal court of the city of Tulsa, Tulsa county, Oklahoma, is accordingly affirmed.

POWELL, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.
March 17, 2015 

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer 

Office of Aviation analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' Essential Air Service at Adak, Alaska 

Docket DOT-OST-2000-8556 

Dear Mr. Kevin Schlemmer: 

This letter is to express strong support for the selection of Alaska Airlines (or "Alaska") to continue to 

provide essential air service to the community of Adak, Alaska. Alaska's jet service is critically important 

to the economic wellbeing of our community. 

The 737 or 737-400 combination ("combi") passenger and cargo aircraft, which Alaska Airlines proposes 

to continue using on this route, provides freight, mail and cargo capacity that a non-jet carrier simply 

cannot provide. Both the 737 and the 737-400 combi aircraft is equipped with Required Navigation 

Performance Technology, which enables the airline to reliably access the airport during inclement 

weather, thus reducing diversions and cancellations and, in turn, enabling people and products to 

dependably reach the community. Alaska Airline service provides Adak Telephone Utility and its affiliate 

companies with security that their equipment and materials are going to reach Adak. Alaska Airline also 

provides Adak passengers with the benefit of expedited and seamless on-line connections to most major 

cities in the "low~r 48," via the airline's Anchorage hub. All of these jet service capabilities are critical to 

the success ofthe Adak community in maintaining and growing our economy. 
Larry Mayes 

President/CEO 

Adak Telephone Utility 

1410 Rudakof Circle 

Anchorage, Alaska 99508
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

 

**Pursuant to**

 

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended **September 30, 2003** (the“Report”) of **MCG Capital Corporation** (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, **Janet C. Perlowski**, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify,to the best of my knowledge, that: 

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies 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 theRegistrant.
# C_2009055EN.01000901.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/9

---

Action brought on 10 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-549/08)

(2009/C 55/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek, A.A. Gilly, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/70/EC (1) of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of a ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/70/EC (1) of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of a ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

1

2

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

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 15 December 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 214, p. 29.

1

(2)  OJ L 309, p. 15.

2

---
log Fish BCF = 2.37 (E)

log Fish BAF = 1.85 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = strong

Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 2 hrs

Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 6 da

Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 6 hr via OH radical

Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 160 hr via ozone

PBT Potential: P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is moderate all routes based on analogs. 

There is concern for mutagenicity, oncogenicity, developmental, liver, and kidney toxicity, 

sensitization, and irritation from the acrylate. Low moderate concern. 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.769

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.811

green algal 96-h EC50 0.162

fish _ chronic value 0.001

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.027

algal _ chronic 

value

0.061

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for SAR chemical class 

= ; liquid with unknown mp (P); log Kow = 4.1 (P); S = 13.4 mg/L at 20 C 

(M); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured 

concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb) 

Acute 

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb) Chronic

1
SARs

SAR Class

New Chemcial Category /

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair:
# C_2010209EN.01003502.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2010 — Kureha Corp v OHIM — Sanofi-Aventis (KREMEZIN)

(Case T-487/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KREMEZIN - Earlier international word mark KRENOSIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Proof of existence of the earlier trade mark - Time-limits - Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2010/C 209/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kureha Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken and O. Sude, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sanofi-Aventis SA (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1631/2007-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi-Aventis SA and Kureha Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kureha Corp. to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kureha Corp. to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

| 3. | Orders Sanofi-Aventis SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Sanofi-Aventis SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED 
IN THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         322,778
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,125,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                   204,196
<INVENTORY>                                 11,066,380
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,579,531
<PP&E>                                       7,695,282
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,518,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,958,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,039,133
<BONDS>                                      6,383,585
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 16,113,107
<COMMON>                                         1,100
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,930,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,958,883
<SALES>                                     74,585,592
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            74,585,592
<CGS>                                       34,433,297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,537,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,355,324
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,259,599
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,259,599
<DISCONTINUED>                              (2,322,392)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,062,793)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.13)
        


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 27, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60952 Summary Calendar

HANA BEDIRU,
Petitioner,

versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A74 509 250

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Hana Bediru petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) opinion that affirmed the decision of

the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture Act. As

Bediru does not specif ically challenge the IJ’s denial of her
application for withholding of removal or her request from relief

under the Convention Against Torture Act, the issues are deemed2

abandoned. S ee Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS , 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th
Cir. 1986).

Bediru contends that the IJ erred i n finding her
testimony not credible and erred in finding that she did not have

a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Ethiopia. We

review the IJ’s d ecision because the BIA essentially adopted the

IJ’s decision. S ee Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.

2002). We will uphold the IJ’s determination that Bediru is not
eligible for asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Faddoul v. INS , 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). To reverse the

IJ’s determination that Bediru is not eligible for asylum, she must

demonstrate the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable

factfinder could conclude against it. C hun v. INS , 40 F.3d 76, 78
(5th Cir. 1994). We will not “review decisions turning purely on

the [IJ’s] assessment of the alien petitioner’s c r edibility.”

Chun , 40 F.3d at 78 (quotation and citation omitted).

This court need not decide the credibility issue because,
even accepting Bediru’s testimony as true with regard to her fear
of persecution upon returning to Ethiopia, a review of the briefs

and the administrative record s shows that the IJ’s determination

that Bediru failed to demonstrate a well-founded f ear of future
persecution is supported by substantial evidence. See Ozdemir v.

INS , 46 F.3d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1994); see Chun , 40 F.3d at 78.

PETITION DENIED

.
# C_2008064EN.01005401.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/54

---

Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission

(Case T-2/08)

(2008/C 64/86)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen (LfM) (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and G.-B. Lehr, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5109 final of 23 October 2007 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to grant for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Nordrhein-Westfalen; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5109 final of 23 October 2007 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to grant for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Nordrhein-Westfalen;

| — | the Commission to be ordered to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission to be ordered to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C (2007) 5109 final of 23 October 2007 on State aid C 34/2006 (ex N 29/2005 and ex CP 13/2004), in which the Commission decided that the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany wishes to grant to commercial service broadcasters in the context of the introduction of digital terrestrial television in Nordrhein-Westfalen, and which was notified to the Commission, is not compatible with the common market.

In support of its action the applicant submits, first, that the contested decision infringes Article 87(1) EC as the measure was wrongly found to amount to State aid. In this connection it is also submitted that there was infringement of Article 253 EC.

In addition it is submitted that an unlawful method of assessment was used in the context of the assessment under Article 87(3)(c) EC. In that regard, the applicant also maintains that there were errors of judgment and assessment and that there was infringement of Article 253 EC.

As a result of errors of judgment and assessment it is further submitted that there was infringement of Article 87(3)(b) and (d) EC.

Lastly, the applicant claims that the measure concerned is in any event covered by the exception in Article 86(2) EC. It is also submitted here that there was infringement of Article 253 EC.

---
956.57733
#### Sabrina Pledger, Respondent, v City of New York, Defendant, and Bainbridge Avenue Corp., Appellant.

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Anita Florio, J.), entered December 11, 1990, which denied the motion of the defendant Bainbridge Avenue Corp. (Bainbridge) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion to dismiss granted and the complaint dismissed as to Bainbridge. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Bainbridge dismissing plaintiffs complaint, with costs.

This is a personal injury action which arose when plaintiff, an employee of the City of New York Department of Transportation, was allegedly injured when a bench collapsed when she sat down. The building where the accident occurred had been leased by Bainbridge to the City of New York. Pursuant to the lease the landlord’s responsibilities were limited to "exterior, structural, roof and sidewalk repairs” as well as periodic painting. The landlord was not otherwise obligated to maintain or repair the premises. Thus, there is no liability of this defendant to a third party allegedly injured by a defective bench, a moveable piece of furniture and not a fixture. *(Manning v New York Tel. Co., 157*AD2d 264 [1990]; *Schlesinger v Rockefeller Center,*119 AD2d 462 [1986].) Moreover, depositions of the building manager, Stephen Scott, and plaintiffs supervisor, Flora Hall, make clear that the bench was owned by the City of New York.

Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-40628 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MARIO MEDRANO-SANCHEZ, also known as Jimi Garcia-Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:13-CR-146-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing t he judgment in a crimin a l c a s e , M a r i o M e d r a n o -Sanchez raises

an argument that he c o n c e d es is foreclosed by U nited States v. RodriguezEscareno , 700 F

. 3 d 7 5 1 , 7 53-54 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied , 133 S. Ct. 2044 (2013), which h eld that the sentence e nhanc e m e n t provided f or in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) applies to a conviction f or the federal cri m e of conspiracy to commit a federal drug-trafficking offense. The appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, a nd the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D February 21, 2014 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-40628 Document: 00512539616 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2014