alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2 Certifications I, Ronald P. McFadden, Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Zones, Inc., certify that: 1.
I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zones, 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 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 we 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 (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) 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.  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):  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:  November 10, 2004 /S/ RONALD P. MCFADDEN
             
             Ronald P. McFadden, Senior Vice
      President and Chief
             Financial Officer  1
# C_2022103EN.01001101.xml

| 3.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/11

---

Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 103/08)

| Member State | Italy |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Olbia-Milan Linate and vice-versa |
| Period of validity of the contract | A period of two years starting on 1 October 2022 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 62 days after the date of publication of this notice |
| Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained | For further information:





  Autonomous Region of Sardinia |
| Department of Transport |
| Directorate-General for Transport |
| Unit for Maritime and Air Transport and Territorial Continuity |
| Via XXIX Novembre 1847, n. 41 |
| 09123 Cagliari |
| ITALY |

Member State

Italy

Route concerned

Olbia-Milan Linate and vice-versa

Period of validity of the contract

A period of two years starting on 1 October 2022

Deadline for submission of tenders

62 days after the date of publication of this notice

Address from which the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

For further information:

Autonomous Region of Sardinia

Department of Transport

Directorate-General for Transport

Unit for Maritime and Air Transport and Territorial Continuity

Via XXIX Novembre 1847, n. 41

09123 Cagliari

ITALY

Tel. +39 0706067331

Fax +39 0706067309

Internet: http://www.regione.sardegna.it

Email: trasporti@pec.regione.sardegna.it

trasp.osp@regione.sardegna.it.

---
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

 

**INDEPENDENTAUDITORS’ REPORT**

 

Osmonics, Inc.

 

We have audited theconsolidated financial statements of Osmonics, Inc. (the Company) as ofDecember 31, 2001 and 2000 and for each of the three years in the period endedDecember 31, 2001 and have issued our report thereon dated March 1, 2002.  Such financial statements and report areincluded in the Company’s 2001 Annual Report to Shareholders and areincorporated herein by reference.  Ouraudits also included the financial statement schedule of the Company listed inItem 14(a)(2).  This financial statementschedule is the responsibility of the Company’s management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinionbased on our audits.  In our opinion,this financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basicfinancial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all materialrespects, the information set forth therein.

 

/s/ Deloitte & ToucheLLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota

March 1, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2928 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2928

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 2016

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 201 B Street in Perryville, Arkansas, as the ``Harold George Bennett 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. HAROLD GEORGE BENNETT POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 201 B Street in Perryville, Arkansas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Harold George Bennett Post Office''.
    (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 ``Harold 
George Bennett Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 18, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# C_2022180EN.01000101.xml

| 3.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10139 – DESFA / COPELOUZOU / DEPA / GASLOG / BTG / GASTRADE)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 180/01)

On 26 November 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10139. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10139. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Jones, Appellant.

(No. 28909

Decided January 14, 1942.)

*Mr. Alva J. Russell,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Robert Azar,*for appellee.

*Mr. Edward S. Sheck, Mr. Stanley Denlinger*and *Mr. Louis L. Manes,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 21

                    PCA INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following is a list of the Company's subsidiaries and affiliates at February
2, 1997 indicating the percentage of ownership and the state or country of
incorporation:

                                                                      PERCENTAGE
                                                                       OF VOTING
                                                                      SECURITIES
                                          STATE OR COUNTRY       OWNED BY THE
                                                 OF
                        NAME                INCORPORATION          COMPANY
----------------------------------------- ------------------   -----------------

Photo Corporation of America              North Carolina             100%

PCA National, Inc.                        North Carolina              *

PCA Specialty Photo Retail Corporation    North Carolina              **

PCA Photo Corporation of Canada, Inc.     North Carolina             100%

PCA of Mexico SA DE CV                    Mexico                     99%

PCA of Argentina S.A.                     Argentina                  100%

ASI Acquisition Corp.                     North Carolina             100%

*     PCA NATIONAL, INC., IS A SUBSIDIARY OF PHOTO CORPORATION OF AMERICA.

** PCA SPECIALTY PHOTO RETAIL CORPORATION IS A SUBSIDIARY OF PCA NATIONAL, INC.

<PAGE>
Opinion issued August 29 , 20 2 4

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 24
- 0 0445
- CR

——————————— GENEVA CHATMAN , Appellant

V. MUHAMMAD NAZIM , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1227874

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Geneva Chatman attempts to appeal a judgment signed on June 4,
2024. On July 1, 2024 , the trial court granted appell ant’s motion for new trial

. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har

Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When a motion for new trial is granted,2

the case is reinstated upon the docket of the trial court and will stand for trial the same as though no trial had been had. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys. , 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005). Thus, when the trial court grants a motion for new trial, the trial court “essentially wipes the slate clean and starts over.” Id . Here, the trial court granted appellant’s motion for new trial within the period of its plenary
power. See T EX
. R. C IV . P. 329b(d), (e); Thomas v. Oldham , 895 S.W.2d 352, 356 (Tex. 1995). Therefore, the issues presented in this appea l are rendered moot and this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction. On August 15, 2024, the Clerk of this Court issued a Notice that this Court might dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response within 10 days of the Notice explaining how this Court had jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant did not adequa tely respond to the Notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss

.
----

| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218                        |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

|   | o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| Exhibit 99.1 | Press Release dated March 4, 2013 issued by First Merchants Corporation |
|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

| Exhibit No. | Description                                                              |
|-------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 99.1        | Press Release, dated March 4, 2013 issued by First Merchants Corporation |

----
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeal of-- ) ) OBD Insaat Taahhut Turizm ) ) Under Contract No. W912ER-14-C-0026 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61169

David F. Dowd, Esq.

Mayer Brown LLP Washington, DC Thomas J. Warren, Esq.

Acting Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Pietro 0. Mistretta, Esq. Regina L. Schowalter, Esq.

EngineerTrial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East Winchester, VA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 10 April 2018

A:dministrative Judge Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61169, Appeal ofOBD Insaat Taahhut Turizm, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Cite as 2013 Ark. 378



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-11-488

LAMAR BORIS DAVIS APPELLANT V. RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE Opinion Delivered October 3, 2013 PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 35CV-11-63, HON. JODI RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM
On July 31, 2011, appellant Lamar Boris Davis, an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) at a facility in Jefferson County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Jefferson County Circuit Court. The circuit court denied the petition, and appellant lodged this appeal. We dismiss the appeal because the Jefferson County Circuit Court can no longer grant the relief requested by appellant. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Wilencewicz v. Hobbs , 2012 Ark. 230 (per curiam); Fudge v. Hobbs , 2012 Ark. 80 (per curiam). Any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is properly addressed to the circuit court in the county in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless the petition is filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. Wilencewicz , 2012 Ark. 230; Davis v. Hobbs , 2012 Ark. 167 (per curiam). Appellant’s petition was not filed under Act 1780, and the public recordsCite as 2013 Ark. 378

of the ADC confirm that appellant is now incarcerated in a facility in Lincoln County. A circuit court does not have jurisdiction to release on a writ of habeas corpus a prisoner not in custody in that court’s jurisdiction. Chestang v. Hobbs , 2011 Ark. 404 (per curiam); Buckhanna v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 119 (per curiam). When a prisoner who seeks habeas relief is transferred to a facility in a different county, the circuit court in the county where the prisoner was previously incarcerated no longer has jurisdiction to issue and make a returnable writ. Wilencewicz , 2012 Ark. 230. Although the Jefferson County Circuit Court may have retained subject-matter jurisdiction, it does not retain personal jurisdiction over the person in whose custody the prisoner is detained, and an order by that court will not act to effect his release. Id. This court will dismiss an appeal of the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus where the appellant is no longer incarcerated in the county where his petition was filed because the court can no longer grant the relief sought. Id

. Appeal dismissed. Lamar Boris Davis , pro se appellant. Dustin McDaniel

, Att’y Gen., by: Christian Harris , Ass’t Att’y Gen., and Adrienne Woods , Law Student Admitted to Practice Pursuant to Rule XV of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of the Supreme Court under the supervision of Darnisa Evans Johnson , Deputy Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,982

EX PARTE DAVID LEROY ARTMORE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 10CR2502 IN THE 122 DISTRICT COURT ND

FROM GALVESTON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

controlled substance and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. 

Applicant contends that his due process rights were violated because a forensic scientist did

not follow accepted standards when analyzing evidence and therefore the results of his analyses are

unreliable. The State and the trial court agreed that relief was warranted before remand, but the

record was insufficient to decide the case at that time. This Court remanded the application to obtain

more information. Specifically, the Court needed three additional pieces of information to resolve
2

this case: (1) a copy of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) report Applicant was relying on for

his claim; (2) a determination that the lab technician named in that report was the only scientist that

worked on this sample; and (3) a finding as to whether the sample was destroyed or could be

retested. The trial court has now provided this Court with all the information necessary to resolve

this case on the merits. The DPS report shows that the lab technician who was solely responsible

for testing the evidence in this case is the scientist found to have committed misconduct, and the

evidence in this case has been destroyed and therefore cannot be retested. Applicant is therefore

entitled to relief. 

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 10CR2502 in the 122 District Court of nd

Galveston County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Galveston

County. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within 10 days after the mandate of

this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: March 6, 2013

Do Not Publish
Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION 
 383 MADISON AVENUE 
 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10179 
  
 As of October 29, 2004 
  
 NC Capital Corporation 
 18400 Van Karman 
 Suite 1000 
 Irvine, CA 92617 
  
 Attention: Mr. Richard Holguin 
  

			
	Re:	  	Master Repurchase Agreement between Bear Stearns Mortgage Capital Corporation and NC Capital Corporation dated as of October 31, 2003 (the “Agreement) and amended as of October 1, 2004
to include NC Residual II Corp, and New Century Credit Corporation

  
 Dear Mr. Holguin: 
  
 This letter will confirm the mutual agreement between Bear Stearns Mortgage Capital
Corporation and NC Capital Corporation, NC Residual II Corp, New Century Credit Corp, to extend the term of the Agreement as described in paragraph 21, “Non-assignability; Termination” to November 30, 2004. The extension shall be subject
to the same terms and conditions as set forth in the Agreement. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Eileen M. Albus


	Name:	 	Eileen M. Albus
	Title:	 	Managing Director


  

			
	 AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
 NC CAPITAL
CORPORATION

		
	BY:	 	 /s/ Rick Holguin


	Name:	 	Rick Holguin
	Title:	 	Vice President