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

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,      AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF      2002**

| 1.   | I                have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Steak n Shake                Company;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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 officer 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)) and internal                control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules                13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the registrant and                have: |

| 5.   | The                registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based                on our                most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,                to                the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's                board of                directors (or persons performing the equivalent                functions): |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. 

and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC., 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00507-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 

CONTINUE RULE 16 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Neonode Smartphone LLC’s Unopposed Motion to 

Continue Rule 16 Case Management Conference. After consideration of the Motion, this 

Court is of the opinion that the Motion is meritorious. It is hereby GRANTED. 

Accordingly, the Rule 16 Case Management Conference is continued to October 23, 

2020, at 1:30 p.m. 

 

Signed this day of , 2020. 

 

 Hon. Alan D. Albright, U.S.D.J. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 20-1 Filed 10/06/20 Page 1 of 1
##### 



EXHIBIT 20.2

[ERNST & YOUNG LETTERHEAD]



Independent Auditors Report on Compliance

Board of Directors
WFS Financial Inc

We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, the consolidated financial statements of WFS Financial Inc and subsidiaries
(WFS) as of December 31, 2002 and for the year then ended, and have issued our report thereon dated January 21, 2003.

In connection with our audit, nothing came to our
attention that caused us to believe that WFS failed to, in all material respects, comply with
the terms, covenants, provisions or conditions of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement among WFS Financial 2002-1 Owner Trust, WFS Receivables Corporation and WFS Financial
Inc, dated March 1, 2002 insofar as they relate to accounting matters. However, it should be noted that our audit was not directed primarily
toward obtaining knowledge of noncompliance.

This report is intended for the use and information
of the Board of Directors and management of WFS, Bankers Trust Company,
as Indenture Trustee, Chase Manhattan Bank, as Owner Trustee,
Financial Security Assurance Inc., as Insurer, Moodys Investors Service, Inc. and Standard & Poors, and should not be used for any other purposes.

/s/   ERNST & YOUNG LLP



January 21, 2003
|                                        | Exhibit 99(a)        
|--------------------------------------- | ---------------------
|Household Home Equity Loan Trust 2002-2 |                      
|                                        |                      
|                                        |                      
|Original Principal Amount               | $    1,290,500,000.00
|Number of Class A Bonds (000's)         | 1,290,500            
|                                        |                      
|Distribution Date                       |                      
|                                        |                      
|                                        |                      
|                                        |                      
|CLASS A                                 |                      
|Principal Payment Amount                |                      
|Interest Payment Amount                 |                      
|                                        |                      
|                                        |
COURT OF APPEALS 

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00108-CR 

TIMOTHY EDWARD DEPAEPE APPELLANT

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- 

FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY 

TRIAL COURT NO. 1387145D 

---------- 

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

---------- 

On March 15, 2016, Appellant Timothy Edward Depaepe signed and filed 

a pro se notice of appeal from the trial court’s April 17, 2015 judgment (or 

perhaps from the trial court’s May 18, 2015 judgment nunc pro tunc). Although 

we have notified Appellant of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this 

 1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 
2 

appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have not received a 

response.2 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.3

PER CURIAM 

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. 

DO NOT PUBLISH 

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) 

DELIVERED: June 16, 2016 

 2See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), 26.2(a)(1). 

3See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
#### TAYLOR v. STATE.

No. 24923.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 25, 1950.

None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary upon his conviction under an indictment charging attempt to commit burglary.

We find no bills of exception in the record. There are no exceptions to the court’s charge and no argument has been presented on behalf of appellant. The evidence is circumstantial, but we think sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.

Appellant, with another, was seen by officers leaving the back door of a drug store in the City of Coleman at a late hour of the night. They pursued him and arrested him and they testify positively that he is one of the men they saw leaving the door which proved to have been damaged in what was evidently an attempt to force entrance into the drug store. The three owners of the drug store testified, among other things, that there was considerable personal property in the drug store and that they had not given consent to appellant, or anyone else, to break into the store. Naturally, the only evidence of intent is circumstantial..

Appellant testifying in his own behalf denied any connection with or knowledge of the attempted burglary. This was inconsistent with and contradictory of the evidence given by the officers. The jury failed to accept appellant’s evidence in the case and their finding, under the facts of this case, cannot be disturbed.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### ENGLISH v. STATE.

No. 25346.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 20, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant. •

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder without malice; the punishment, five years confinement in the penitentiary.

The record before us contains neither -bills of exception nor statement of facts. Nothing is presented for consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is -affirmed.
From: John Mietus [mailto:john@mietuslaw.com]

Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 7:14 PM

To: Finamore, Robert (OST)

Subject: FW: POLL: Aeromexico Mexico City-Orlando (scheduled, combination)

Bob, I’ve completed the poll of the US carriers shown, and there are no objections to the attached 

application.

Best regards, John

From: John Mietus 

Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 3:27 PM

To: 'carl.nelson@aa.com'; 'robert.wirick@aa.com'; 'sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com'; 

'jeff.morgan@delta.com'; 'bkeiner@crowell.com'; 'lhalloway@crowell.com'; 'gmurphy@crowell.com'; 

'dan.weiss@united.com'; 'jonathan.linde@united.com'; 'steve.morrissey@united.com'; 

'howard.kass@usairways.com'; 'benjamin.slocum@usairways.com'; 'nssparks@fedex.com'; 

'gbleopard@fedex.com'; 'jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com'; 'jcanny@amerijet.com'; 

'anita.mosner@hklaw.com'; 'pmurphy@ggh-airlaw.com'; 'sharfst@usa3000airlines.com'; 

'slachter@lachter-clements.com'; 'efaberman@wrf.com'; 'bob.kneisley@wnco.com'; 'jyoung@yklaw.com'; 

'dkirstein@yklaw.com'; 'msinick@ssd.com'; 'agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com'; 'urskr@state.gov'; 

'john.allen@faa.gov'; 'robert.finamore@dot.gov'; 'info@airlineinfo.com'

Subject: POLL: Aeromexico Mexico City-Orlando (scheduled, combination)

Dear all, attached please find an Aeromexico exemption application for Mexico City-Orlando scheduled, 

combination authority. A prompt response with your carrier's position on the application will be greatly 

appreciated.

Best regards, John

POLL LIST:

carl.nelson, robert.wirick@aa.com

sascha.vanderbellen, jeff.morgan@delta.com

bkeiner, lhalloway, gmurphy@crowell.com for United

dan.weiss, jonathan.linde, steve.morrissey@united.com

howard.kass, benjamin.slocum@usairways.com

nssparks, gbleopard@fedex.com

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com + jcanny@amerijet.com

anita.mosner@hklaw.com for UPS

pmurphy@ggh-airlaw.com for USA 3000

sharfst@usa3000airlines.com

slachter@lachter-clements.com for Astar

efaberman@wrf.com for Frontier and Airtran 

bob.kneisley@wnco.com for AirTran

jyoung, dkirstein@yklaw.com for Spirit

msinick@ssd.com for Alaska

agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com for Ryan Int'l

_________________________

John Mietus
Law Office of John Mietus, LLC

6701 Democracy Blvd Ste 300

Bethesda, MD 20817-7500

(202) 747-5212

(240) 396-5362 fax

john@mietuslaw.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this e-mail and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected 

from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not review, use, disclose, distribute or copy the information it contains; 

destroy this e-mail and notify the sender by reply e-mail or an e-mail to admin@mietuslaw.com. Thanks.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5511 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5511

To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Vinylbenzenesulfonic acid, lithium 
                                 salt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

 Mr. Stivers introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on 4-Vinylbenzenesulfonic acid, lithium 
                                 salt.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 4-VINYLBENZENESULFONIC ACID, LITHIUM SALT.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        4-                  Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          Vinylbenzenesulfo                                                 12/31/2015
                          nic acid, lithium
                          salt (CAS No.
                          4551-88-6)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2904.10.32)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of 99 Cent Stuff, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Raymond Zimmerman, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Barry Bilmes, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of his knowledge:

         (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
Company.

/s/ Raymond Zimmerman
------------------------------
Name:  Raymond Zimmerman
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  March 30, 2005

/s/ Barry Bilmes
------------------------------
Name:  Barry Bilmes
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  March 30, 2005

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Order entered April 25 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 01284
- CR No. 05
- 15
- 01285
- CR
LATOYA DENISE MCMULL EN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F14
- 24837
- U , F14
- 24545
- U



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES the appeals. On March 14, 2016, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief had not been filed. On April 19, 2016, counsel tendered an Anders brief. Accordingly, we conclude findings are no longer necessary and VACATE the March 14, 2016 order to the extent it requires findings.
We ORDER appellant’s brief filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Exhibit 12(b)



Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

Union Pacific Railroad Company and Consolidated Subsidiary and Affiliate Companies

(Unaudited)



|                                                         |  |                          |     |   |      |   |     |  
|-------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ | --- | - | ---- | - | --- | -
|                                                         |  | Six Months EndedJune 30, |    
|Millions of Dollars, Except Ratios                       |  | 2005                     |     |   | 2004 |  
|Earnings:                                                |  |                          |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Net income                                               |  | $                        | 366 |   |      | $ | 329 |  
|Equity earnings net of distributions                     |  |                          | (17 | ) |      |   | (26 | )
|                                                         |  |                          |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Total earnings                                           |  |                          | 349 |   |      |   | 303 |  
|                                                         |  |                          |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Income taxes                                             |  |                          | 215 |   |      |   | 123 |  
|                                                         |  |                          |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Fixed charges:                                           |  |                          |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Interest expense including amortization of debt discount |  |                          | 244 |   |      |   | 251 |  
|Portion of rentals representing an interest factor       |  |                          | 100 |   |      |   | 93  |  
|                                                         |  |                          |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Total fixed charges                                      |  |                          | 344 |   |      |   | 344 |  
|                                                         |  |                          |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Earnings available for fixed charges                     |  | $                        | 908 |   |      | $ | 770 |  
|                                                         |  |                          |     |   |      |   |     |  
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                       |  |                          | 2.6 |   |      |   | 2.2 |  
|                                                         |  |                          |     |   |      |   |     |
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00052

- CR

Pervis Lee Andrews Jr.

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 297th District Court

o f Tarrant County (1436114D )

July 12, 2018

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF A PPEALS

By

_ /s/ Wade Birdwell

_________________ Justice Wade Birdwell
#### Ex parte GIBSON.

No. 23582.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 13, 1946.

Steve Miller, of Tyler, and J. S. Gris-ham and Thomas C. Unis, both of Dallas, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Relator was indicted by the Grand Jury of Smith County for the murder of Pat Templeton. Upon a hearing of the writ of habeas corpus he was denied bail, and he appeals.

The facts presented herein by the State show that relator and his brother, Tomlin Gibson, assaulted Pat Templeton, someone inflicting 47 knife wounds and four scratches upon him; that the difficulty took place over an area of about 300 yards; that these wounds were immediately fatal. The Gibson brothers were both on the body of the deceased and striking him until he ceased talking and expired; that his body was found in a ditch along the roadside about 300 yards from where the difficulty began, and his shirt was torn off of him.

It is claimed herein that there was no malice shown and that, therefore, the proof is not evident of a killing by express malice. This court held; in substance, in the case of Stephens v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 164, 245 S.W. 687, that since the abolition of the degrees of murder, in determining whether a case of murder is bailable, the evidence must show express malice, whether that malice be proved as an existing fact or implied from the circumstances of the killing. It is not always necessary that the killer possess a sedate and deliberate mind; malice may be formed _ in but an instant. “Malice requires no specific or appreciable length of time for its germination 'or growth, but may be formed in the mind just before the doing of an act.” 22 Tex.Jur. p. 562, sec. 93. Also, “a killing may be on express malice though no motive is proved, and the very fact that it was without cause may indicate the existence of express malice.” 22 Tex. Jur. p. 564, sec. 94. It may be shown by circumstantial evidence. See Plasters v. State, 1 Tex.App. 673.

We think the trial court was correct in its refusal of bail, and the judgment will therefore be affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2673 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2673

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to provide that residential mortgage 
loans held on portfolio qualify as qualified mortgages for purposes of 
  the presumption of the ability to repay requirements under such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2013

   Mr. Barr introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Truth in Lending Act to provide that residential mortgage 
loans held on portfolio qualify as qualified mortgages for purposes of 
  the presumption of the ability to repay requirements under such Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Portfolio Lending and Mortgage 
Access Act''.

SEC. 2. LOANS HELD ON PORTFOLIO TREATED AS QUALIFIED MORTGAGES.

    Section 129C(b)(2) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
1639c(b)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) Loans held on portfolio.--The term `qualified 
                mortgage' includes a residential mortgage loan made by 
                a creditor so long as such loan appears on the balance 
                sheet of such creditor.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### MAHON v. STATE.

No. 22507.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 12, 1943.

Tom L. Robinson, of Gatesville, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for selling whisky in a dry area. The punishment assessed is a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The complaint and information appear to be in regular form, and are sufficient to charge the offense.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.