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


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Charles M. Kluck, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Amstar Financial Services, 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 officer(s) and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

     (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
          the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting; and

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

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date:  March 5, 2008


/s/ Charles M. Kluck
------------------------
Charles M. Kluck
Chief Financial Officer
1 

### STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Tammy Y. Daniel, Claimant Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 23-324 (JCN: 2020021356)

(ICA No. 22-ICA-291)

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Employer Below, Respondent



### MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Tammy Y. Daniel appeals the April 10, 2023, memorandum decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (“ICA”). See Daniel v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. , No. 22-ICA-291, 2023 WL 2861731 (W. Va. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2023) (memorandum decision). Respondent FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. filed a timely response. 1 The issue on appeal is whether the ICA erred in affirming the November 9, 2022, decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed the claim administrator’s order denying authorization requests for an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at C5-C6, a neurological referral, and a pain management referral.

The claimant asserts that the surgical procedure and the two referrals are medically necessary and reasonably related to the compensable injury. The employer maintains that the claimant points to no erroneous procedure, no arbitrary or capricious conclusions, and no abuse of discretion or jurisdictional error by the tribunals below.

This Court reviews questions of law de novo, while we accord deference to the Board of Review’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly wrong. Syl. Pt. 3, Duff v. Kanawha Cnty.

Comm’n , No. 23-43, 2024 WL 1715166 (W. Va. Apr. 22, 2024). Upon consideration of the record and briefs, we find no reversible error and therefore summarily affirm. See W. Va. R. App. P. 21(c).

Affirmed.

1 The petitioner is represented by counsel Reginald D. Henry and Lori J. Withrow, and the respondent is represented by counsel H. Dill Battle, III. 

### FILED August 27, 2024

C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA2

ISSUED: 

### August 27, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice John A. Hutchison

Justice William R. Wooton Justice C. Haley Bunn
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**FAIRWAY CONSUMER DISCOUNT COMPANY,** 

**Respondent**

**v.**

**CHARLES LASKOWSKI A/K/A CHARLES**

**A. LASKOWSKI AND KAREN**

**LASKOWSKI A/K/A KAREN L. LASKOWSKI, HUSBAND AND WIFE,** 

**Petitioners :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 530 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 16th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 20, 2010 

s1213 

Order 

 

December 20, 2010 

141599 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141599 

 COA: 280887 

 Kent CC: 06-000220-FC 

MARCO ANTONIO HERCULES-LOPEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3447 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3447

   To amend title 5, United States Code, to make clear that Federal 
   employees who receive back pay for a period during which they are 
   furloughed due to a lapse in appropriations may not also receive 
             unemployment compensation for the same period.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 12, 2013

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 5, United States Code, to make clear that Federal 
   employees who receive back pay for a period during which they are 
   furloughed due to a lapse in appropriations may not also receive 
             unemployment compensation for the same period.

    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 ``Furloughed Federal Employee Double 
Dip Elimination Act''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 8508 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before the first sentence; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) The rules and regulations shall include provisions to ensure 
that, in the case of a Federal employee who receives back pay for a 
period during which such employee was furloughed due to a lapse in 
appropriations--
            ``(1) such back pay shall be treated in the same way as 
        Federal wages attributable to such employee; and
            ``(2) the period to which such back pay relates shall be 
        treated in the same way as a period of Federal service 
        attributable to such employee.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be 
effective as of September 30, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 95-60748 & 95-60750

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILMER O. ROWE, Jr.,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

- - - - - - - - - -

June 13, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Wilmer Rowe, #245-23-077, appeals the district court’s denial

of his joint motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentences

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This court need not consider the

issues whether the Government breached the Florida plea agreement,

whether t he district court calculated the applicable restitution

amount improperly, and whether the district court erred by entering

a restitution order without finding that Rowe had the ability to

pay restitution because these issues were decided on Rowe’s directNos. 95-60748 & 95-60750

- 2 -

criminal appeal. S ee United States v. Santiago

, 993 F.2d 504, 506

& n.4 (5th Cir. 1993). Rowe’s allegations that the district court

erred by denying his § 2255 motion because the Government committed

prosecutorial misconduct, because the Government failed to disclose

material terms of the plea agreement at sentencing, and because he

was denied a fair sentencing due to alleged deliberat e false

testimony of witnesses Fellabaum and Fayard are not within the

scope of § 2255 because they are nonconstitutional issues that

could h ave been raised on direct appeal. S ee United States v.

Vaughn

, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Capua

,

656 F.2d 1033, 1037 (5th Cir. 198 1). Rowe’s allegations that he

was d enied effective assistance of counsel do not support relief

because the allegations are conclusional. S ee Lincecum v. Collins

,

958 F.2d 1271, 1279-80 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 506 U.S. 957

(1992).

AFFIRMED.
#### EDWARDS v. STATE.

No. 22835.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 12, 1944.

Noah Roark, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Conviction is for felony theft; punishment assessed is confinement in the State penitentiary for a term of ten years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged and waived a jury upon the trial. The indictment and all other matters of procedure appear to be in, regular form.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.2


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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Horizon Medical Products,
Inc. (the "Corporation") for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Vice President - Finance of the Corporation, certifies that:

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

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

/s/ Julie F. Lancaster
--------------------------------
Julie F. Lancaster
Vice President - Finance
(Principal Financial Officer)
March 28, 2003
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. 50-382] 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Entergy Operations Inc. (the licensee), to withdraw its August 4, 1999, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-38 for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. 

The proposed change would have primarily modified Technical Specification (TS) 3.5.2 to extend the allowed outage time to seven days for one high pressure safety injection train inoperable and TS 3.5.3 to change the end-state to HOT SHUTDOWN with at least one OPERABLE shutdown cooling train in operation. 

                    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 26, 2000 (65 FR 4277). However, by letter dated April 20, 2000, the licensee withdrew the proposed change.                 

For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated August 4, 1999, and the licensee's letter dated April 20, 2000, which withdrew the application for license amendment. These documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site (the Electronic Reading Room). 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of October 2000. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

N. Kalyanam, 

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 00-27510 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3340 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3340

 To require use of amounts repaid to the Secretary of the Treasury by 
        Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce the national debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 24, 2013

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require use of amounts repaid to the Secretary of the Treasury by 
        Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce the national debt.

    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 ``Fannie-Freddie Debt Elimination Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. USE OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC REPAYMENTS TO REDUCE NATIONAL 
              DEBT.

    (a) Reduction of National Debt.--Any amounts paid or repaid to the 
Secretary of the Treasury by the Federal National Mortgage Association 
or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation in any form, including 
any dividends paid pursuant to the Amended and Restated Senior 
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements, dated September 26, 2008, amended 
May 6, 2009, further amended December 24, 2009, and further amended 
August 17, 2012, between the United States Department of the Treasury 
and the Federal National Mortgage Association, and between such 
Department and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation shall be 
transferred by the Secretary to the special account established by 
subsection (d) of section 3113 of title 31, United States Code, and 
shall be used only as provided in such subsection.
    (b) Prohibition.--The Secretary of the Treasury may not enter into 
any agreement to further alter, amend, or change any provision of the 
Amended and Restated Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements 
referred to in subsection (a) (as amended through August 17, 2012) that 
relates to dividend payment dates, dividend periods, dividend rates, or 
dividend amounts.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                              EXHIBIT 12


                                                               MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV
                                                                MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING IV, L.P.
                                                                 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
                                                   COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS
                                                                          (dollars in thousands)



                                   FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED                 FOR THE YEAR ENDED
                                    DECEMBER 27, 2002                  DECEMBER 28, 2001                  DECEMBER 29, 2000
                           ---------------------------------  ---------------------------------  ----------------------------------
                              MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH     MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH    MERRILL LYNCH
                                 PREFERRED       PREFERRED          PREFERRED       PREFERRED        PREFERRED       PREFERRED
                           CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV,L.P.  CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV,L.P.  CAPITAL TRUST IV  FUNDING IV, L.P.
                           ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ---------------  ----------------- ----------------

<S>                        <C>                 <C>            <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>

Earnings                       $ 29,361           $ 34,303        $ 29,361           $ 34,428         $ 29,361            $ 34,478
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========


Fixed charges                  $      -           $      -        $      -           $      -         $      -            $      -

Preferred securities
 distribution
 requirements                    28,480             29,361          28,480             29,361           28,480              29,361
                               --------           --------        --------           --------         --------            --------

Total combined fixed
 charges and preferred
 securities distribution
 requirements                  $ 28,480           $ 29,361          28,480           $ 29,361         $ 28,480            $ 29,361
                               ========           ========        ========           ========         ========            ========

Ratio of earnings to
 combined fixed charges
 and preferred securities
 distribution requirements         1.03               1.17            1.03               1.17             1.03                1.17


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        7
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>               11,051
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                   0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                     0
<EQUITIES>                             41
<MORTGAGE>                             64
<REAL-ESTATE>                           0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                     12,033
<CASH>                              1,310
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                      0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     15,429
<POLICY-LOSSES>                         0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                     0
<POLICY-OTHER>                     11,942
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                   0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                       229
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                            14
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                          1,119
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       15,429
<PREMIUMS>                              0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                   420
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                     16
<OTHER-INCOME>                        179
<BENEFITS>                              0
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>            36
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                  151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        96
<INCOME-TAX>                           31
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                           65
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        2.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                        2.09
<RESERVE-OPEN>                          0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                     0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                       0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                      0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                        0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                         0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                 0
        

</TABLE>
#### LANGSTON v. STATE.

No. 24960.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 8, 1950.

No attorney, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for felony theft, punishment assessed by the jury at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without bills of exception or statement of facts. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.