alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                      EQUITY GENERAL PARTNER CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert McKinney, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Property
Analysts Master Limited Partnership;

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: May 12, 2005

By: Feldman International Inc., its equity general partner

By: /s/ Robert McKinney
    -----------------------
    Name: Robert McKinney
    Title: President
#### SILAS LAMBETH *against*BRITTAIN WARNER.

A widow has a right to clear the lands assigned to her for dower, for the purposes of cultivation, where it is necessary for the enjoyment of the estate; provided it is done with a due regard to the proportion of wood and cleared land.

*166The clearing of sixteen acres in addition to thirty acres already cleared in a tract of 240 acres heavily timbered, is not out of proportion or unreasonable as regards the rights of the remainder-man.

Appkal from an interlocutory order of the Court of Equity of Davidson County, Spring Term, 1855, dissolving the injunction heretofore granted.

Ho counsel for- the plaintiff.

*Morehead,*-for the defendant.

Mask, C. *J.*

*The*plaintiff claims to *he seized*in fee of a reversion in a tract of land of which the defendant is in possession, having a life interest.

Samuel Lambeth died leaving a widow, to whom was assigned, as her dower in her husband’s estate, the land in question. She intermarried with the defendant. The hill is filed for an injunction to stay waste. The hill charges, that at the time the defendant took possession of the land, there was on it a valuable growth of locust and other trees which he has cut down and sold to the rail-road company for sills. The defendant admits cutting down timber of that description, and its sale to the company, hut avers he cut timber only on the thirty acres of laud which were partially cleared when ho went there, and sixteen acres more'which he designed to clear and which it was necessary to do, to support his family, which consists of his wife and some children, himself and his children. Upon the coming in of the answer, the injunction was dissolved,

In his answer, the defendant states, that when he took possession, there were about thirty acres of cleared land, and that he intended to clear sixteen more ; that he had cut down the timber, not only on that already cleared, but also on that he intended to clear, and that the sixteen additional acres were necessary to iiie support of the family. That the whole quantity assigned to his wife for dower was 240 acres, which was heavily timbered where it was not cleared.

Claiming the land in right of his wife, he has no greater *167right to its use than she had.. The widow’s dower is assigned to her for the support of herself and family, and she has a right to clear land for cultivation, when it is necessary to the enjoyment of the estate, if done with a due regard to the proportion of wood and cleared land. *Shine*v. *Wilcox,*1 Dev. and Bat: Eq. 631.

The clearing of the sixteen acres in addition to the thirty acres, is not an unreasonable act, as regards the interest of the ,'remainder-man, and the defendant is not exercising his right in an unreasonable mannei’, and is at liberty to clear the’ sixteen acres, and to cut down and dispose of, as he may think .proper, all the timber on it.
-88 -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

32 34 36 38 40 42 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 06/08 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 08 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 23
- 00401
- CV

__________________ JULIA ANN POFF , Appellant
V. WILLIAM POFF AND GINA SMITH , Appellee s

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23DC
- CV
- 00947

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Relying on Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court dismissed claims for “ alienation of affection, criminal conversation and enticement of spouse [] ” brought by Appellant, Julia Ann Poff, against Appellees, William Poff and Gina Smith

. Appellant sought to appeal four orders: (1) an order denying a motion to quash a hearing and temporarily stay proceedings; (2) an order granting special exceptions; (3) an order granting a protective order from discovery ; and (4) the order dismissing in part the lawsuit filed by Appellant. The Clerk of the Court2 notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless the Court received a written reply identifying the particular statute or rule authorizing an appeal at this time. Appellant responded to the Clerk’s notice, arg uing that a dismissal is an appealable order and that her mai n claim against Appellees is intentional infliction of emotional distress. This Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final j udgments and interlocutory orders specifically made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har

Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001 ). As Appellant concedes, her live pleading includes claims against both Appellees for intentional infliction of emotional distress. T he trial court’s Rule 91a order does not dispose of all her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. None of the orders in the clerk’s record state t hat the orders are final and appealable, n or do the orders contain language that d isposes of all claims and parties. See id

. at 205. We conclude we lack jurisdiction over the attempted appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM Submitted on April 3, 2024 Opinion Delivered April 4, 2024 Before Gole mon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-30048

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

MAJOR WILLIAMS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Louisiana

(96-CR-49-B-M2)

December 25, 1997

Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

A jury convicte d Major Williams, Jr. of possession of an

unregiste red sawed-off shotgun and possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon. Williams argues that the district court erred in

denying his motion to suppress the shotgun. The district court did

not commit error. We affirm.

Though we review the reasonableness of an investigatory stop2 United States v. Michell etti , 13 F.3d 838, 841 (5th Cir.

1994 (en banc)

3 United States v. Rideau

, 969 F.2d 1572, 1574 (5th Cir. 1992)

(en banc)

4 Id

.

2 and frisk d e novo

, we must review the evidence in the light mos t

favorable to the government as the prevailing party. 2 In assessing

the reasonableness of an officer’s actions, we employ an objective

standard. 3 Our inquiry is whether the facts available to the

officer at the moment of the search justify a man of re asonable

caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. 4 The

facts available to the officers in this case support the pat-down.

At approximately 9:00 p.m. on April 11, 1996, law enforcement

o fficers observed Williams and another individual parked in a n

automobile in the parking l o t of a car wash. Officer Paul

Marionneaux, the officer who eventually conducted the pat-down of

Williams, tes tified that substantial criminal activity occurs in

the area in which the car wash is located. He also testified that

W illiams and his companion were sitting in an unwashed vehicle,

which made it apparent that the two were not present for the

purpose of utilizing the facilities. When Marionneaux illuminated

the cabin of the vehicle with his floodlight, he noticed Williams

extending his arm downward as if to place something on, or retrieve

something from, the floorboard. When Marionneaux ordered Williams5 Williams concedes that the initial stop was justified.

3 to exit the vehicle, 5 he noticed a bulge in the right-front pocket

of Williams’ jacket. Marionneaux patted down the exterior of the

pocket, and felt wh at he believed to be shotgun shells. He then

reached into the pocket and discovered four 16-gauge shotgun

shells. Finally, he patted down Williams’ chest area and

discovered a sawed-off shotgun concealed beneath his jacket. Given

the facts of this case, we conclude that Officer Marionneaux’s

conduct fits squarely within the limitations imposed by the Fourth

Amendment.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                        DIGITAL DESCRIPTOR SYSTEMS, INC.
                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 of Digital Descriptor Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael Pellegrino, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company fully complies with
      the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Digital Descriptor Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Digital
Descriptor Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

Date: December 29, 2005


/s/ Michael Pellegrino
-------------------------------------
Michael Pellegrino
Chief Financial Officer
# Official Journal C 254/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 254 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6229 July 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 254

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6229 July 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 254/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2019/C 254/02 | Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates applicable as from 1 August 2019(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 ( OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1 )) | 2 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 254/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2019/C 254/02

Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates applicable as from 1 August 2019(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 ( OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1 ))

(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 ( OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1 ))

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 254/03 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to the product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 3 |

V   Announcements

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2019/C 254/03

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to the product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

3

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Official Journal C 5/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 5 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5010 January 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 5

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5010 January 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory Acts |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2007/C 005/01 | Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 21 December 2006 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Oesterreichische Nationalbank (ECB/2006/29) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory Acts

European Central Bank

2007/C 005/01

Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 21 December 2006 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Oesterreichische Nationalbank (ECB/2006/29)

(ECB/2006/29)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 005/02 | Euro exchange rates | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2007/C 005/02

Euro exchange rates

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL AND COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2007/C 005/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4494 — Evraz/Highveld) (1) | 4 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL AND COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2007/C 005/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4494 — Evraz/Highveld) (1)

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
United States of America 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor 

 Washington, DC 20036-3457 

SECRETARY OF LABOR, 

Complainant, 

v. OSHRC Docket No. 09-0240 

DEEP SOUTH CRANE & RIGGING CO., 

Respondent. 

BRIEFING NOTICE 

The issues that follow have been identified by the Review Commission as of interest on 

review. 

(1) With respect to Citation 1, Item 1, Instance No. 3, did the judge err in 

affirming the violation? In discussing this issue, the parties are asked to 

address whether the record supports a finding that the employer gave specific 

instructions to the site supervisor to the effect the crane operator would need 

on-the-job-training or another qualified operator in the cab with him while 

raising and lowering the boom or otherwise moving the crane. If so, was the 

failure to follow any such instructions foreseeable? W.G. Yates & Sons 

Constr. Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 459 F.3d 

604 (5th Cir. 2006). 

(2) With respect to Citation 2, Item 1, did the judge err in affirming the 

violation? 

The parties are advised that when the merits or characterization of an item are before the 

Commission for review, the appropriateness of the penalty is also subject to review. 

Accordingly, the parties may address the amount of the penalty if they so choose. 

 All briefs are to be filed in accordance with Commission Rule 93.1

 The first brief is to be 

filed within 40 days of this notice. A party who does not intend to file a brief must notify the 

 

1

 The Commission requests that all briefs include an alphabetical table of authorities with 

references to the pages on which they are cited, and that an asterisk be placed in the left-hand 

margin of the table to indicate those authorities on which the brief principally relies. The 

Commission also requests that copies of cited authority, other than statutes, case law, law journal 

articles and legal treatises, be provided to the Commission and to the opposing party. Parties 

should be cautioned that these materials will be considered only if appropriate. 
Commission in writing setting forth the reason therefore within the applicable time for filing 

briefs, and shall serve a copy on all other parties. The time for filing briefs (or similar notices of 

intent) of opposing parties shall commence on the date of service. 

 

 BY DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION 

Dated: 5/6/2010 /s/______________________ 

 Ray H. Darling, Jr. 

 Executive Secretary
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [CERCLA-04-2024-7016 et al.; FRL-12337-01-R4]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed settlements.

# SUMMARY:

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to enter into individual settlements with six parties concerning the Bennett Landfill Fire Site located in Chester, South Carolina. The proposed settlements address recovery of CERCLA costs for a cleanup that was performed at the Site and costs incurred by EPA.

# DATES:

The Agency will consider public comments on the proposed settlements until December 13, 2024. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlements if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

# ADDRESSES:

Copies of the proposed settlements are available from the Agency by contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact information provided in this notice.

Comments may also be submitted by referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:

*Internet: https://www.epa.gov/​aboutepa/​about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices*

*Email: Painter.Paula@epa.gov*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The individual proposed settlements are as follows: Upstate Environmental Services, Inc., 04-2024-7012(b); NEO Corporation, 04-2024-7013(b); CHSPSC, LLC, 04-2024-7015; Madison Acquisitions, LLC, Cherokee Plaza Partners, and Tristate SC One, LP, together under 04-2024-7016.

Maurice Horsey,

Chief, Enforcement Branch, Superfund & Emergency Management Division.

[FR Doc. 2024-26225 Filed 11-12-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P