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

 

CERTIFICATIONS

 

I, Jerry Collazo, certifythat:

 

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Channell Commercial Corporation;

 

2.                     Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 15, 2006 | By:    | /s/  Jerry Collazo |   |
|--------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|               |   | Jerry Collazo           |
|               |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 15





Letter Re:  Unaudited Interim Financial Information

Aetna Inc.
Hartford, Connecticut

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re: Registration Statements No. 333-07169, 333-08427, 333-08429, 333-08431,
333-52321, 333-68881, 333-52321-01, 333-52321-02, 333-52321-03, 333-52321-04,
and 333-52321-05.


With respect to the subject Registration Statements filed by Aetna Inc. or its
Subsidiaries, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report
dated April 27, 1999 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



                                                  /s/  KPMG LLP


Hartford, Connecticut
April 27, 1999
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549








FORM 8-K








CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of


the Securities Exchange Act of 1934


Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 28, 2015








First Commonwealth Financial Corporation


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)











Pennsylvania001-1113825-1428528(State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)(Commission File Number)(IRS EmployerIdentification No.)601 Philadelphia Street, Indiana, PA15701(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip Code)


Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (724) 349-7220


Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





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


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


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


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





---




Item 2.02Results of Operations and Financial Condition


On April 28, 2015, First Commonwealth Financial Corporation (the “Company”) issued a press release announcing financial results for the three month period ended April 28. 2015.  A copy of this press release and the related earnings tables are furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this report and incorporated herein by reference.





Item 7.01Regulation FD Disclosure


On April 28, 2015, the Company announced a cash dividend of $0.07 per share of the Company’s common stock.  The dividend declaration is included in the press release announcing financial results for the three month period ended March 31, 2015.  A copy of this press release is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this report and incorporated herein by reference.





Item 9.01Financial Statements and Exhibits


Exhibits


99.1Press Release announcing First Quarter 2015 Financial Results and Declaration of Quarterly Dividend.





---




SIGNATURES


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


Dated: April 28, 2015





FIRST COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL CORPORATIONBy:/s/ James R. ReskeName:James R. ReskeTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Order entered March 25, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00778-CV

D. REGINALD STOVER, JACE HARKEY, ROBERT H. HOLMES,

AND THE HOLMES LAW FIRM, INC., Appellants

V.

ADM MILLING CO., Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-13400

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee ADM Milling Co.’s March 6, 2019 notice that the 

bankruptcy court has lifted the automatic stay in the bankruptcy proceeding. The Court construes 

ADM Milling’s notice as a motion to reinstate the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.3(a). Attached to 

ADM Milling’s filing is a copy of the bankruptcy court’s March 4, 2019 agreed order granting 

D. Reginald Stover’s nunc pro tunc motion for relief from the automatic stay to proceed with this 

appeal. That order lifted the automatic stay “as of the [bankruptcy] Petition Date,” April 2, 2018,

and with respect to this appeal, states it:

(i) permit[s] [Stover] and ADM [Milling] to continue to conclusion that certain 

appellate proceeding in the Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas (the 

“Appellate Court”), styled as D. Reginald Stover, Jace Harkey, Robert H. 

Holmes, and The Holmes Law Firm, Inc., Appellants v. ADM Milling Co., 
Appellee, No. 05-17-00778-CV (the “Appeal”), and (ii) authorize[s] the Appellate 

Court to finalize the Appeal.

The Court REINSTATES this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
#### EUBANKS et ux. v. SIMPSON et al.

No. 4567.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Jan. 13, 1936.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1936.

Jno. A. Coffee, of Hereford, for plaintiffs in error.

Simpson, Dorenfield, Foster & Fullingim, of Amarillo, for defendants in error.

MARTIN, Justice.

The parties will carry here their trial court designation.

Plaintiffs sued defendants, alleging the hereafter described loan contract was usurious, sought to have all interest payments made thereon credited on the principal, and to cancel the trust deed given as security therefor, and to remove cloud from title.

Trial was to the court. Judgment for defendants.

On August 26, 1926, plaintiffs executed their note, secured by a trust deed, for the sum of $1,500, payable in 120 monthly installments of $18.75 each, to Braniff Investment Company. This note, except as to date, amount, and name of parties, is precisely identical in all its terms with the $4,200 note construed and copied in full in the case of Shive v. Braniff Inv. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.) 68 S.W.(2d) 564, 565. The trial court correctly construed the present contract as evidencing no intent to charge usury, as we did in the Shive Case supra, and as the Supreme Court likewise did in the later case of Braniff Inv. Co. v. Robertson, 124 Tex. 524, 81 S.W.(2d) 45, 100 A.L.R. 1421.

The proof shows here that plaintiffs received only $1,430, $70 being deducted from the face of the loan for a “commission and title fee.” It is claimed that this one fact distinguishes the case at bar from those just cited, and that Adleson et ux. v. B. F. Dittmar Co., 124 Tex. 564, 80 S.W.(2d) 939, rules this case. In the Ditt-mar Case the amount actually received was treated as the real principal. Here $1,430 was the sum received. Treating this as the real principal, the interest on such sum, according .to the face of the contract, figures .0984'per cent, per annum. If accelerated, the note provides that “the interest on said loan shall be 107⁄8.” In the Dittmar Case, a similar payment was applied to reduce the principal, but if we call the said $70 interest, and add it to the total of all other interest payments, the contract still . draws less than 10 per cent, per annum, if allowed to run to maturity. We quote:

> “The law limits the compensation that may be charged and received for the use and detention of money to ‘not exceeding ten per cent per annum on the amount of the contract.’ * * *

> *292“If the contract for the use and detention of the principal debt is not a sum greater than such debt would produce at 10 per cent, per annum’ from the time the borrower had the use of the money until it is repaid, it is not usurious. Galveston & H. Inv. Co. v. Grymes, 94 Tex. 609, 63 S.W. 860, 64 S.W. 778.” Southern States Mort. Co. v. Lykes (Tex.Civ.App.) 85 S.W.(2d) 780, 783, writ ref.

To discuss this case further is merely to rethrash old straws.

Judgment affirmed.
#### McCHRISTY v. STATE.

No. 19276.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 5, 1938.

*188Mahan & Broughton, of Childress, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possessing whisky in a container not having affixed thereto a stamp showing the payment of the tax due the State of Texas; the punishment, a fine of $100.

Omitting the formal parts, the complaint reads as follows: “Era McChristy did then and there unlawfully have in her possession a jar of whisky to which said jar there was not then and there affixed a stamp showing the payment of the tax on said whisky due to the State of Texas, and to which said jar there was not then and there affixed an affidavit showing that said whisky had been withdrawn from a container of whisky on which said container the taxes due thereon to the State of Texas had been paid.”

Inspectors of the Texas Liquor Control Board found in appellant’s private residence three one-half gallon jars containing whisky. No witness testified that there was not affixed to the containers a stamp showing the payment of the tax due the State of Texas. Moreover, there was no proof that there was not affixed to said containers an affidavit showing that the whisky had been withdrawn from a container of whisky on which the taxes had been paid. Manifestly, the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction.

The affidavit for the search warrant was made on information and belief. We are of opinion that the facts and circumstances set forth therein are not sufficient to constitute probable cause. It follows that appellant’s objection to the testimony of the officers touching the result of the search should have been sustained.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER C-URIAM.

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.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3070 

To clarify that for purposes of all Federal laws governing marine fisheries 

management, the landward boundary of the exclusive economic zone 

between areas south of Montauk, New York, and Point Judith, Rhode 

Island, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2015 

Mr. ZELDIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To clarify that for purposes of all Federal laws governing 

marine fisheries management, the landward boundary of 

the exclusive economic zone between areas south of 

Montauk, New York, and Point Judith, Rhode Island, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘EEZ Clarification 

5 Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3070 IH

1 SEC. 2. LANDWARD BOUNDARY OF EEZ NEAR BLOCK IS2 LAND FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL MARINE 

3 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT. 

4 For purposes of all Federal laws governing marine 

5 fisheries management— 

6 (1) the landward boundary of the exclusive eco7 nomic zone between the area south of Montauk, New 

8 York, and the area south of Point Judith, Rhode Is9 land, shall be considered to be a continuous line run10 ning— 

11 (A) from a point 3 miles south of the 

12 southernmost point of Montauk to a point 3 

13 miles south of the southernmost point of Block 

14 Island, Rhode Island, and 

15 (B) from such point 3 miles south of the 

16 southernmost point of Block Island, Rhode Is17 land, to a point 3 miles south of the southern 

18 most point of Point Judith; and 

19 (2) the authority to manage such fisheries in 

20 waters landward of such line is vested in States and 

21 interstate marine fisheries management commis22 sions, as applicable, that otherwise have jurisdiction 

23 over such waters. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3070 IH

1 SEC. 3. REPORT ON IMPACT OF MODIFYING LANDWARD 

2 BOUNDARY OF EEZ FOR ALL FEDERAL FISH3 ERIES MANAGEMENT. 

4 Not later than 3 years after the date of the enact5 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall report 

6 to the Congress on the impact of section 2. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.5
Executed Version
CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY [***], HAS BEEN OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 24B-2 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.




AMENDMENT No. 2 TO LETTER AGREEMENT COM0271-15


This Amendment No.2 COM0278-17 (the "Amendment No. 2") dated as of August 11, 2017 is between Embraer S.A. ("Embraer") and Aircastle Holding Corporation Limited ("Buyer"), collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”, and constitutes an amendment and modification to Letter Agreement COM0271-15 dated June 12, 2015 as amended from time to time (the "Letter Agreement").
All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning when used herein as provided in the Letter Agreement and in case of any conflict between this Amendment No. 2 and the Letter Agreement, this Amendment No. 2 shall control.


WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to [***];


WHEREAS, [***];


WHEREAS, [***].


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, which is hereby acknowledged by the Parties, Embraer and Buyer agree as follows:


1. [***]


The Article 13 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following:


“13. [***]


2. [***]


A new Article 16 shall be added to the Letter Agreement, as follows: 


“16. [***].


3. [***]


Article 15 is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following:


“15. [***]. 


4. REMAINING ARTICLES NUMBERS 


Original Articles 16 (Compliance with Laws), 17 (Reinstatement of the Purchase Agreement) and 18 (Counterparts) shall be respectively renumbered as 17, 18 and 19.













5. REINSTATEMENT OF LETTER AGREEMENT


All other provisions and conditions of the referenced Letter Agreement, as well as its related Attachments, which are not specifically modified by this Amendment No. 2 shall remain in full force and effect without any change.


6. COUNTERPARTS


This Amendment No. 2 may be signed by the Parties hereto in any number of separate counterparts with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 


This Amendment No. 2 may be signed by facsimile with originals duly signed to follow by an internationally recognized courier.


[INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]













































































IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Embraer and Buyer, by their duly authorized officers, have entered into and executed this Amendment No. 2 to be effective as of the date first written above.


	
		
	EMBRAER S.A.
	AIRCASTLE HOLDING CORPORATION LIMITED 

	

By        /s/ Simon Newitt
Name:  Simon Newitt
Title:     Vice President, Contracts
             Commercial Aviation 
	

By        /s/ Alexander A. Green
Name:  Alexander A. Green
Title:     Director

	

By        /s/ John Slattery 
Name:  John Slattery
Title:     President & CEO Commercial Aviation 
	 

	Place:  São José dos Campos - SP
Brazil
	Place:   __________
# C_2023057EN.01001001.xml

| 16.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/10

---

Opinion Of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 5 July 2022 concerning a Draft Decision in Case AT.40522 – Metal Packaging

Meeting by Audio Conference – via ‘Skype for Business’

Rapporteur: The Netherlands

(2023/C 57/06)

1.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the anticompetitive behaviour covered by the draft decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU.

2.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practice was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU.

3.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that the agreement and/or concerted practice was capable of appreciably affecting trade between the Member States of the EU.

4.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.

5.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission that fines should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.

6.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003. 8 Member States voted in favour. 1 Member State voted against.

7.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice and on the 2008 Settlement Notice.

8.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

9.

The Advisory Committee (9 Member States) recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---
# C_2023311EN.01000801.xml

| 1.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/8

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

SA.107400

(2023/C 311/07)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 14.7.2023 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.107400 |
| Member State | Romania |
| Region | Romania |
| Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary) | Aid scheme to SMEs in the livestock sector |
| Legal basis | Proiect de Hotărâre de Guvern privind instituirea unei scheme de ajutor de stat în sectorul creşterii animalelor |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | Agriculture; Forestry; Rural areas, Aid to the livestock sector |
| Form of aid | Subsidised services |
| Budget | Overall budget: 561 571 180 RON
  Annual budget: 112 314 236 RON |
| Intensity | 100,0  % |
| Duration | Until 31.12.2027 |
| Economic sectors | Animal production |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale |
| Blvd Carol I; nr. 2-4; București; Sector 3 |

Date of adoption of the decision

14.7.2023

Aid number

SA.107400

Member State

Romania

Region

Romania

Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)

Aid scheme to SMEs in the livestock sector

Legal basis

Proiect de Hotărâre de Guvern privind instituirea unei scheme de ajutor de stat în sectorul creşterii animalelor

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

Agriculture; Forestry; Rural areas, Aid to the livestock sector

Form of aid

Subsidised services

Budget

Overall budget: 561 571 180 RON

Annual budget: 112 314 236 RON

Intensity

100,0  %

Duration

Until 31.12.2027

Economic sectors

Animal production

Name and address of the granting authority

Ministerul Agriculturii și Dezvoltării Rurale

Blvd Carol I; nr. 2-4; București; Sector 3

Other information

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA

---