alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Patrick J. Pedonti, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SS&C Technologies, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this quarterly report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 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 quarterly report is being prepared;  b) Not applicable;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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.   Date: November 2, 2007 /s/ Patrick J. Pedonti     Patrick J. PedontiSenior Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6544
KEVIN J. KENDRICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARROL TYNDALL; DENNIS R. BIDWELL, Warden; KATHLEEN HAWK, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-299-JFM) Submitted: August 28, 1997 Decided: September 17, 1997 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin J. Kendrick, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice for failure toexhaust administrative remedies, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The district court properly req uired exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 1997). Because Appellant did not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the court's dismissal of the action, without prejudice, was not an abuse of discretion. Appellant submitted with his informal brief materials which may support his contention that he exhausted his administrative remedies. However, these materials were not presented to the district court and will not be considered in the first instance by this court. We therefore deny Appellant's motion for production of documents and affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF THE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFNBH BANCORP, INC.

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

I,
James R. McAuliffe, President and Chief Executive Officer of FNBH Bancorp, Inc., certify,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:

(1)       
          The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008,
          which this statement accompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and;

(2)       
          The information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
          quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of FNBH Bancorp,
          Inc.

|Date: May 9, 2008 |  | FNBH BANCORP, INC.By /s/ James R. McAuliffe      
      James R. McAuliffeIts:  President and Chief Executive Officer
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to FNBH Bancorp, Inc.
and will be retained by FNBH Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
IA 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 15 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to authorize 

the line item veto. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2009 

Mr. PLATTS introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to authorize the line item veto. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 15 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘In the case of any bill, order, resolution, or vote 

3 which is presented to the President under section 7 of Ar4 ticle I, the President may decline to approve in whole any 

5 dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, any item 

6 of new direct spending, or any tax benefit. A matter which 

7 the President declines to approve under this article of 

8 amendment shall be returned with his objections to the 

9 House in which it originated, and shall be treated in the 

10 same manner as a bill which the President returns without 

11 signing under section 7 of Article I.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32-2



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 on Form
10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund V, L.P., Series 3 (the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2012
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Melanie R. Wenk, Vice President -Chief Financial
Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 result of operations
of the Partnership.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/
    MELANIE R. WENK                                          | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Melanie R. Wenk                                                  | 
|Vice President-Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
|                                                                
|November 9, 2012
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas EmissionsMeeting DocumentationDateStaffContactInformation(Name, email,phone #)Name ofOrganization(Attach list ofall attendeesnames andemails ifpossible)Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability,reporting requirements, etc.)Written CommentsProvided?Did they alsosubmit to Docket?Date sentto EPACCDJune 30, 2010(telephonecorrespondence)Paul Stewart, ICFInternational, 202-862-1135,pstewart@icfi.comon behalf of EPAunder ContractEP-W-07-068,Task Order 68Oncor(participantswere RayAveritt, LaurenCasey, andDeborah Boylevia DebraBoyle’s directphone line at214-486-2022)Call was to discuss the scales currently in use atOncor as well as the content of Oncor’s publiccomments submitted to docket EPA-HQ-OAR2009-0506 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927.The following is key information provided byOncor:They do not currently use scales withhigh accuracy and precision. The scalesthey currently use are the generic kindyou would find at a department store andaren’t necessarily made for weighingcylinders.Although they recommended 2 poundabsolute scale accuracy requirements intheir public comments, they do not haveexperience using scales with thisaccuracy. Their recommendation wasbased on research they performed on theprice of scales and their opinions on whatlevel of accuracy is reasonable formeasuring mass-balance inputs.Yes, writtencomments weresubmitted to docketsEPA-HQ-OAR2009-0506 andEPA-HQ-OAR2009-0927 beforethis meetingoccurred.N/A
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1297

To reduce the rates of basic pay for Members of Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1993

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota introduced the following bill; which was referred

jointly to the Committees on Post Office and Civil Service and House

Administration

A BILL

To reduce the rates of basic pay for Members of Congress.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY.

4 This Act applies with respect to each position under

5 subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 601(a)(1) of the

6 Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(1)).

7 SEC. 2. PAY REDUCTION FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

8 (a) IMMEDIATE REDUCTION.—Effective as of the be9 ginning of the first applicable pay period beginning on or

10 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the rate of
2

•HR 1297 IH

1 basic pay for each position to which this Act applies shall

2 be reduced by—

3 (1) the amount by which the rate of basic pay

4 for such position was increased under section

5 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of

6 1946 in calendar year 1993; and

7 (2) an additional amount such that the total re8 duction under this subsection is 5 percent.

9 (b) SUBSEQUENT ADJUSTMENT.—

10 (1) PARTIAL RESTORATION.—Effective as of

11 the beginning of the first applicable pay period be12 ginning on or after January 1, 1994, the rate of

13 basic pay for each position to which this Act applies

14 shall be increased by an amount equal to the amount

15 by which the rate of basic pay for such position was

16 reduced under subsection (a)(1).

17 (2) COORDINATION RULE.—If a pay adjustment

18 under paragraph (1) is to take effect on the same

19 date as any other pay adjustment with respect to the

20 same position, the adjustment under paragraph (1)

21 shall be made first.

Æ
Non-employee Directors' Compensation Summary




Exhibit
10.46

 

Non-Employee
Directors’ Compensation Summary as of March, 2005




Effective
as of March 7, 2005, non-employee directors are eligible for the following
compensation:





	
      Annual
      Retainer Fee
	
      $35,000
	 
	
      Committee
      Meeting Fees
	
      $1,500
	 
	
      Committee
      Chair Annual Retainer Fees:
	 	 
	
      Audit
      Committee Chairperson
	
      $20,000
	 
	
      Compensation
      Committee Chairperson
	
      $10,000
	 
	
      Nominating
      and Corporate Governance Chairperson
	
      $10,000
	 
	
      Annual
      Non-qualified Stock Option Grant
	
      10,000
	
      options

	
      Initial
      Non-qualified Stock Option Grant
	
      15,000
	
      options










Under our
Directors’ Cash Compensation Umbrella Program (previously filed as Exhibit
10.36), non-employee directors continue to be eligible to choose to receive
compensation either in cash, in fully vested restricted stock under our Second
Amended and Restated Cabot Microelectronics Corporation 2000 Equity Incentive
Plan, or as deferred compensation under our Director’s Deferred Compensation
Plan (previously filed as Exhibit 10.28). Our Directors’ Deferred Compensation
Plan allows non-employee directors to defer their compensation in the form of
rights to acquire the equivalent number of shares of common stock at the end of
the deferral period. Non-employee directors continue to receive their respective
annual retainer fees, committee chair annual retainer fees and annual
non-qualified stock option grants at the time of our annual meeting, or upon the
date of a director’s original election to the Board of Directors, if other than
the annual meeting date.
#### Mrs. Inez E. VAN DYKE, Appellant, v. O. H. SUMMERS, Appellee.

No. 10870.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Feb. 5, 1941.

Myrick & Johnson, of Harlingen, for appellant.

Clayton R. Baird, of Edinburg, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed without written opinion on authority of Associated Indemnity Corporation et al. v. Gatling, Tex.Civ.App., *75*S.W.2d 294.
September 13, 2011 

U.S Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, M-30 

West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Exemption No 8684B, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-23640 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

In accordance with Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations parts 11.63 and 11.81, US 

Airways, Inc (US Airways) petitions the Administrator to amend Exemption No 8684B to extend 

the expiration date of the exemption from January 31, 2012, to January 31, 2014, or other such 

future date as may be found acceptable. Exemption No 8684B, as amended, grants relief from 14 

CFR part 121.619 so as to authorize ceiling and visibility values of 1000 feet and 2 statute miles. 

This exemption has been used by US Airways and several other airlines for over 5 years with no 

negative impact. US Airways continues to be in compliance with the conditions of the exemption 

to 14 CFR part 121.619, and believes that extending Exemption No. 8684B, as stated, would have 

no adverse effect on safety. 

Therefore, we respectfully request an extension of Exemption No. 8684B for two years, or other 

appropriate regulatory relief. 

US Airways suggests that good cause exists for waiving publication of notice of this petition in 

the Federal Register. The grant of exemption petitioned for here would not set a precedent, and 

the exemption would in all ways, other than the effective date, be identical to the exemption now 

in place. Delay in acting on the petition would be detrimental to the petitioner and to the public, 

as well. 

Please let me know if there is any further information you need for your review of this petition. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely,

Captain Lyle Hogg 

Vice President, Flight Operations 

4000 East Sky Harbor Blvd, FC-FSS, Phoenix, AZ 85034 (480) 693-4660 Fax (480) 693-4936 
SUMMARY 

US Airways, Inc. petitions for an amendment to Exemption No 8684B to extend the expiration 

date of same, which permits US Airways to conduct operations using lower ceiling and visibility 

minima. Additionally, US Airways is requesting that the FAA waive the requirement for Federal 

Register publication, as such a waiver does not set a precedent and will reduce the time necessary 

to process this request.
#### HOUSTON v. STATE.

No. 19807.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 1, 1938.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for assault with intent to murder; the punishment, confinement in the state penitentiary for two years.

*110The record fails to show that notice of appeal was given and entered upon the minutes of the tria-l court. In the absence of such á showing, this court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine matters sought to be presented for review. See Long v. State, 3 Tex.App. 321; Lenox v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 259, 116 S.W. 816; Roberts v. State, 99 Tex.Cr.R. 492, 269 S. W.103; Article 827, C.C.P.

The attempted appeal is dismissed.

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.
EXHIBIT
32.1




RULE
13a - 14(b) CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF




FINANCIAL
OFFICER




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officers of Source Interlink
Companies, Inc. (the "Corporation") hereby certify that the Corporation's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended October 31, 2008 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Corporation.





Dated:
      December 10, 2008
              
              /s/
              ------------------------------------------
              Name:  Gregory
      Mays
              Title:
      Chairman of the Board of Directors
              
              /s/
              ------------------------------------------
              Name:  Marc
      Fierman
              Title:
      Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

RAYMON CERVANTES, JR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-1802-C (BH)

)

DALLAS COUNTY CIU UNIT, et al., )

)

Defendants. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the plaintiff’s request to recuse the assigned

U.S. Magistrate Judge, filed on June 28, 2023 (doc. 31), is DENIED.

A judge is required to stand recused “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might

reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). “As the goal of § 455(a) ‘is to exact the appearance

of impartiality,’ recusal may be mandated even though no actual partiality exists.” United States

v. Avilez-Reyes, 160 F.3d 258, 259 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Hall v. Small Business Admin., 695 F.2d

175, 178 (5th Cir. 1983)). To merit recusal, the movant “must show that, if a reasonable man knew

of all the circumstances, he would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” Chitimacha Tribe

of La. v. Harry L. Laws Co., 690 F.2d 1157, 1165 (5th Cir. 1982). Adverse rulings do not render

the judge biased, however. Matter of Hipp, Inc., 5 F.3d 109, 116 (5th Cir. 1993). “[J]udicial rulings

alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. . . . [T]hey . . . can only

in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no

extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for

recusal.” Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

1

 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full case management.

Case 3:22-cv-01802-S-BH Document 32 Filed 07/05/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 393
Here, although the plaintiff alleges bias, he relies only on the alleged merit of his claims and

speculation. He does not cite any relevant, extrajudicial information that would cause a reasonable

person, knowing all the circumstances, to question the impartiality of the assigned magistrate judge. 

The motion appears to be based on adverse rulings. As noted, adverse rulings do render a judge

biased. Moreover, the assigned district judge has retained the ultimate decision-making authority

for this case despite the referral to a magistrate judge for case management. The recommendations

for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims contain a notice of right to appeal and object, he has filed his

objections to the recommendations, and the objections remain pending before the assigned district

judge. (See docs. 23, 25, 27, 29.) 

Because it presents no valid grounds for recusal, the motion for recusal is denied. 

SO ORDERED this 5th day of July, 2023.

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01802-S-BH Document 32 Filed 07/05/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 394
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1397 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1397

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 6, 2009

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 41 Purdy Avenue in Rye, New York, as the ``Caroline O'Day Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CAROLINE O'DAY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 41 Purdy Avenue in Rye, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Caroline O'Day Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Caroline 
O'Day Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 5, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```