alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Steven Kass, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Tofutti Brands Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 15(e) and 15d- 15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]

(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

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(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 26, 2004

/s/Steven Kass*
---------------
Steven Kass
Chief Financial Officer

* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
#### J. H. HOWELL et al., Appellants, v. KENTUCKY-WEST VIRGINIA GAS COMPANY, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 4, 1955.

*430Joe Hobson, Prestonsburg, for appellants.

Combs & Combs, Prestonsburg, for ap-pellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

J. F. Howell and W. H. Howell, owners of the surface of a tract of land in Floyd County, brought action seeking a declaration as to their right to free gas for domestic purposes, under a reservation in a mineral deed executed by one of their predecessors in title. The court held that the reservation was personal to the original grantor in the mineral deed, and his children living on the land, and that the Howells were not entitled to’ free gas. The Howells. appeal.

The mineral deed was executed by Samuel Music. The clause reserving free gas was as follows:

> “If oil and gas should ever be found in paying quantities, the grantors shall have the free use of gas for household and domestic purposes for all the children of grantors living on the farm or land herein described.”

Samuel Music had six children at the time the mineral deed was executed. Later, he conveyed separate portions of the land to each of his children, and thereafter four of the children conveyed their portions to the Howells, who now occupy the land.

In Lyons v. Gambill, 242 Ky. 696, 47 S.W.2d 532, this Court construed a free gas reservation very similar to the one here involved. In that case we held that the right to free gas was a personal one which the members of the grantor’s family could exercise only so long as they continued to live on the farm, and was not a right that could be transferred to a stranger. We think the Gambill case is controlling here.

Wagner v. Hamilton, 303 Ky. 120, 196 S.W.2d 973, and Warfield Natural Gas Co. v. Small, 282 Ky. 347, 138 S.W.2d 488, relied upon by" the appellants, are distinguishable. In the Wagner case, although the reservation was in terms personal, there was a clause in the deed reciting that all terms, conditions and covenants of the deed should extend to the heirs and assigns of the parties. In the Small case, the reservation was simply to the “ ‘party of the first part’ ”, and there was nothing to indicate an intention to limit the reserved right to specific individuals.

The judgment is affirmed.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 324 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 - CE - 0 0 8 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **:** 

### G. Keith Noles **Date**

**Branch Manager Date**
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 2, 2019

No. 04-18-00635-CV

IN RE E.F., J.P.V., V.J.V., AND R.J.V., CHILDREN,

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-01049

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice1

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice1

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice1

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Appellant’s motion for reconsideration en banc is pending before the court. The court 

hereby requests that appellee file a response to the motion no later than fourteen (14) days from 

the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.2. 

It is so ORDERED on August 2, 2019.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________

 Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court

 

1 Dissents to the order requesting a response and would deny the motion for reconsideration en banc.
#### Boyce A. GATEWOOD v. STATE.

No. 27528.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 6, 1955.

iNo attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Driving while intoxicated is the offense; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $100.

Accompanying the record is the affidavit of appellant requesting the dismissal of the appeal. The request is granted. The appeal is dismissed.
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 26701.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 16, 1953.

*107No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful transportation of whiskey in a dry area, with a prior conviction alleged to enhance -the punishment; the punishment, a fine of $400.00.

Deputy Sheriff Johnson testified that on the day in question, while driving along a street in the City of Lubbock, he observed the appellant walking with what appeared to be three lugs of “alcoholic” under his arm; that he brought his automobile to a halt; that the appellant started running and ran into his house. The officer testified that by the time he got to the door of appellant’s house an automobile driven by someone else started to drive off; that he stopped the automobile, got some whiskey' out of the automobile, and placed the driver under arrest; that after this had been done he told the appellant’s wife to have him come out of the house; that at first she stated that appellant was not at home, but later called to him, and appellant came' around the house to where he was.

The officer stated that he asked the appellant where the whiskey was that he had been carrying, and the appellant replied, “I broke it around here in the back,” -and then led the officer to a spot near the back door, where they found one lug containing wet, broken bottles and bearing a strong odor of alcohol, which he took into his possession, and that he then arrested the appellant.

The State offered in evidence “the lug wrapper * * * and broken bottles and any labels that were on the bottles that are in there at this time, the seals thereon.”

Appellant, testifying in his .own behalf, denied that he had run when the officer approached him and denied that the lug found in his back yard had ever been in his possession.

The jury resolved this disputed issue against the appellant, and we find the evidence sufficient to sustain their verdict.

Appellant objected to the testimony of the officer concerning. his -conversation with the appellant on the grounds that the appellant was under arrest.

We do not think it is necessary for this Court to determine when the appellant was placed under arrest because we feel that the evidence was admissible whether or not he was under arrest. The officer asked the appellant, “Can you show me where you broke it ?”; the , appellant replied in the affirmative, and they proceeded together to where the lug was found.

The proof is meager that the broken bottles had contained whiskey, as was alleged, but the rule in Bouldin v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 413, 168 S.W.2d 868, finds application here. In that case we held that, where the prosecuting witness asked the accused for whiskey and the accused agreed to sell some whiskey and soon returned with something in a bottle, this constituted an admission of the appellant- that the liquid was whiskey.- Here the officer asked the appellant what he had done' with the whiskey, and the appellant took him to some broken bottles which had a strong odor of alcohol.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
IMAGE TECHNOLOGY LABORATORIES, INC.


                     EXHIBIT 32.1 - ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION

                            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 of Image Technology Laboratories, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Lewis M. Edwards, Chairman and Chief Technology Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:


     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.








/S/ LEWIS M. EDWARDS
-----------------------
LEWIS M. EDWARDS,
CHAIRMAN,
EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT,
CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, AND PRINCIPAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICER
NOVEMBER 20, 2006
Emerald Kalama Chemical , LLC

1296 Third Street NW, Kalama, WA 98625 / Phone: 360

- 673

- 0317

www.emeraldmaterials.com 

### Premanufacture Notice for p

- isopropyl cinnamic aldehyde

Additional Technical Contacts List

Confidential Business Information

Please add the following persons to the Technical Contacts list for this Premanufacture Notice:

Name : James Tanzilli

Phone : 3 30

- 916

- 6725

Email : J ames.Tanzilli @emeraldmaterials.com

Location : 2020 Front Street, Suite 100

Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44221

, USA

Position: Director of Product Compliance

Name : Jerry Andrews

Phone : 360

- 673

- 0271

Email : Jerry.Andrews@emeraldmaterials.com

Location : 1296 Third Street, NW

Kalama, WA 98625 USA

Position: Director of Research and Development
From: Colleen McKaughan/R9/USEPA/US

To: jgrady@calportland.com
Cc: Gregory Nudd/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Eugene Chen/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 11/09/2012 08:19 AM Subject: EPA Information for California Portland Cement Company

Jay,

Here is the information that I promised

- a summary sheet of information for the two cement plants under review, plus our contractor report. Our staff engineers are in the process of reviewing this material now, so if you notice any errors in the documents, we would be interested in th at information. We wanted to give you an opportunity to look at the materials, and then we would like to schedule a conference call with you at your convenience to go over any questions that you might have.

We also have some questions (below) that would h elp our understanding of your facility.

Regarding next steps, we have to propose action on the Arizona Regional Haze Plan by December 8,

2012. If we disapprove any portions of the plan we will have to propose federal measures. Our deadline to propose fe deral measures is March 8, 2013. If California Portland Cement would like to submit information to EPA for our consideration, we would like to receive that information no later than the first week of January, 2013.

If you have questions, please contact m e or Greg Nudd, who is the project lead. Greg can be reached at

415

- 947

- 4107. Thank you for your cooperation on these issues.

Colleen W. McKaughan Associate Director, Air Division USEPA, Region 9 (520) 498

- 0118

(See attached file: Non EGU_RP_Ch5 (Pho enix Cement, CalPortland only).xlsx)(See attached file: WA5

- 12 Task 9 Deliverable

- RPAnalysis Report (CalPortland

- Phoenix ONLY)_final.docx)

CalPortland Cement Company

1. When was the Kiln 4 preheater/precalciner system constructed and when did it start operation.

2. What is the expected life of Kilns 1

- 4?

3. Does the facility use any of the following methods for controlling NOx at Kilns 1

- 4 or the pyroprocessing system? If so, which are used?

 Combustion zone control of temperature and excess air

 Feed mix composition

 Reduction of alkali content of raw feed CemStar process

 Kiln fuel change

 Increasing thermal efficiency

4. Do Kilns 1

- 4 or the pyroprocessing system use any of the following NOx combustion controls? If so, which are used?

 Staged combustion of Air

 Mixing Air Technology (MAT)

 Flue gas recirculation (FGR)
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 11422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04411]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Addition to the Procurement List.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action adds a product to the Procurement List that will 
be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or 
have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Effective Date: 3/31/2014.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202-
4149.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 
603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Addition

    On 10/25/2013 (78 FR 63967-63968), the Committee for Purchase From 
People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed 
addition to the Procurement List.
    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning 
capability of a qualified nonprofit agency to provide the product and 
impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractor, the 
Committee has determined that the product listed below is suitable for 
procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 
CFR 51-2.4.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors 
considered for this certification were:
    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other 
than the small organization that will furnish the product to the 
Government.
    2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to furnish 
the product to the Government.
    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would 
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 
8501-8506) in connection with the product proposed for addition to the 
Procurement List.

End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following product is added to the Procurement 
List:

Product

NSN: 7520-00-NIB-2197--Stapler, Economy, Metal-bodied, Spring-
powered, 20-Sheet Capacity.
NPA: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, 
NC.
Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY.
Coverage: A-List for the Total Government Requirement as aggregated 
by the General Services Administration.

Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014-04411 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```
#### GRAY et al. v. TAYLOR et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 18, 1954.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 8, 1954.

J. B. Campbell, Barbourville, Cleon K, Calvert, Pineville, for appellants.

Victor A. Jordon, Barbourville, for ap-pellees.

*31CULLEN, Commissioner.

The judgment in this action decreed that title to a SO-acre tract of land in Knox County be quieted in Andrew Taylor, who was the defendant below. Subsequent to the entry of the judgment Andrew Taylor was killed, and the plaintiffs below, who are some of the children of one Sallie Smith Baker, have prosecuted this appeal against the widow and heirs of Andrew Taylor.

The plaintiffs claimed under a deed executed to their mother and father in 1914, by their grandfather, George B. Taylor. The defendant claimed under some deeds alleged to have been executed by George B. Taylor to his other children, in 1917, and the defendant further relied upon adverse possession since 1921.

There was no evidence to identify the land in controversy as being that described in the plaintiff’s deed, other than the bare statements of the plaintiffs themselves that it was the same land. The defendant could produce only one of the several deeds upon which he relied, and there was no satisfactory proof that the land described in that deed was the same as the land in controversy.

There was evidence for the defendant that he had fenced the land in controversy, in 1921, and had maintained the fence since that time. There was evidence that the defendant had farmed the land for several years, had cut timber and sold timber to others, and had pastured the land. There also was some evidence that he had paid the taxes on the land for many years. Although these acts of adverse possession when considered individually perhaps would not be sufficient to establish title by adverse possession, nevertheless their cumulative effect, when considered with other elements, was such as to establish a continuous course of adverse possession for the required period.

The land was located immediately above a small tract upon which the plaintiffs and their mother had lived for many years, and across a road from a tract where the defendant lived. The proximity of the land in controversy to the tract upon which the plaintiffs lived was such as to give them clear notice of the acts of adverse possession by the defendant.

We think the evidence was sufficient to justify a finding that the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession, and the judgment awarding title to the defendant therefore was proper.

The judgment is affirmed.
SCWC-14-0001077 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

WILLIE JAMES JONES, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-14-0001077; S.P.P. NO. 13-1-0033; CR. NO. 95-1384) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ., and Circu it Judge Trader, i n place o f McKenna , J., rec used) Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant Willie James Jones’s application for writ of certiorari filed on August 22, 2017, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, September 25, 2017. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Rom A. Trader Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-14-0001077 25-SEP-2017 09:44 AM
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-8 (FileNo. 333-128159) of Dresser-Rand Group Inc. of our reportdated March 31, 2006 relating to the financial statementsand financial statement schedule of Dresser-Rand Group Inc.(Successor) and our report dated May 12, 2005, except as tothe information contained in Note 26 for which the date isJanuary 16, 2006, relating to the combined financialstatements and financial statement schedule of Dresser-RandCompany (Predecessor), which appear in this Form 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPPricewaterhouseCoopers LLPBuffalo, New YorkApril 4, 2006
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. ALASKA JUNEAU GOLD MINING COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 4114.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

May 26, 1937.

Charles Fahy, Gen. Counsel, and Robert B. Watts, Associate Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Carl E. Croson, of Seattle, Wash., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Order of National' Labor Relations Board modified by consent, and, as modified, enforced. Order filed.