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

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dean L. Cash, certify that:

1.  I  have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on  Form  10-QSB  of  ATEL  Cash
Distribution Fund VI, LP;

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 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 is made known
     to us by others within the entity,  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 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 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 controls
     over financial reporting.


Date:         August 11, 2004



/s/ Dean L. Cash
------------------------------------------
Dean L. Cash
President and Chief Executive
Officer of General Partner
#### Schacht, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*September 18*

October *12, 1926.*

*Bastardy: Evidence: Sufficiency: Harmless error.*

A judgment in bastardy proceedings is affirmed although it is conceded that error occurred in the instructions and on the trial, as the errors assigned are *held*not to affect the substantial rights qf the plaintiff in error.

Error to review a judgment of the circuit court for Sauk county: August C. Hoppmann, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*V. H. Cady*of Baraboo, for the plaintiff in error.

For the prosecutrix there was a brief by *Grotophorst, Quale & Langer*of Baraboo, and oral argument by *H. M. Langer.*

Eschweiler, J.

Upon a verdict of the jury, plaintiff in error, defendant below, was adjudged the father of a child born to the complaining witness and was held chargeable with its future maintenance. Upon writ of error a large number of errors are assigned.

We have considered them all, and although it appears that conceded error was made by the trial court in his charge to the jury on the subject of the presumption of innocence; that the defendant was unduly restricted in his own examination as to a, conversation alleged to have taken place between himself and the complaining witness; was improperly deprived of impeaching testimony offered . as to one or more of the witnesses, yet because, under sec. 274.37, Stats, (sec. 3072m), the errors assigned and found in the record do not, in our opinion, after an examination of the entire proceedings, so affect the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error as to require a reversal of the judg*199ment or the granting of a new trial, we must nevertheless affirm.

It is deemed unnecessary to detail or discuss the evidence or the specific errors assigned.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# Official Journal C 63/20 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 63 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5820 February 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 63

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5820 February 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 063/01 | 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 (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2015/C 063/02 | 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 (
  2
  ) | 7 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 063/01

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 (
  1
  )

1

1

2015/C 063/02

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 (
  2
  )

2

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty

2

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

EN
1

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Cause No. 01-12-01082-CV; In re H.L.B., T.K.B., and C.L.B.

On Appeal from the 313th District Court of Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-01752J

On March 15, 2013, Julie A. Ketterman, counsel for appellant, filed in this Court a “Third 

Motion to Extend the Deadline for Filing Appellant’s Brief.” In support of her request, counsel 

references other professional obligations such as an appellate brief due in February, “several 

multi-day hearings in other family law cases,” and preparation for a jury trial. Ketterman further 

states that she “has nearly completed researching and preparing her brief.” 

Appellant’s motion for a third extension of time for an additional thirty days to file 

appellant’s brief is denied. Appellant is ordered to file her brief by 5:00 p.m. on March 27, 2013. 

If appellant’s brief is not filed, we will abate the appeal for the appointment of new appellate 

counsel.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

  Acting individually ☐ Acting for the Court

Panel consists of:

Date: March 19, 2013
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00304-CV

PLATINUM RECOVERY & RECYCLING, LLC,

Appellant

v.

A-1 SPECIALIZED SERVICES, INC.,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-1428-CV

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED. We order that appellee recover its costs of this appeal from appellant. 

SIGNED February 15, 2017.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E55-E56]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                RECOGNIZING THE DEATH OF CLAIBORNE PELL

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, January 9, 2009

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Claiborne 
Pell, Princeton Graduate, former senator from Rhode Island, creator of 
Pell Grants, and writer of legislation that created the National 
Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. 
He served six terms in the office, until 1997.
  Words alone can not express my sincere admiration for Claiborne Pell 
and the legacy he has left behind: a program that has given grants to 
tens of millions of college students and will continue to give grants 
to generations of college students to come.
  I truly admire Claiborne Pell for his commitment to aiding students 
in paying for college education. The Pell Grants began with the 
creation of a bill that created the Basic Education Opportunity Grant 
(BEOG) which provided financial aid to the needy to attend college. The 
Basic Education Opportunity Grant (BEOG) was renamed in honor of Pell 
and his work for these grants in 1980 as Pell Grants: Pell had 
sponsored the research of a two-volume report that had been the basis 
of the bill that

[[Page E56]]

created the BEOG. Pell's dedication to providing assistance to college 
students in meeting the high costs of a college education will be 
remembered for years to come.
  Claiborne Pell was also very dedicated to the Arts and Humanities. He 
was the author of the National Foundation of the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965. Both of these led to the creation of the 
National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the 
Humanities. The National Endowment for the Arts fostered many 
techniques and styles that are credited with making American artists 
distinguished worldwide.
  Mr. Pell's outstanding leadership, patriotism and accomplishments 
will surely serve as an inspiration for many Americans.

                          ____________________
```
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 36 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR SOAP BOX 

4 DERBY RACES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Greater Washington Soap 

6 Box Derby Association (in this resolution referred to as 

7 the ‘‘sponsor’’) shall be permitted to sponsor a public 
2 

•HCON 36 EH 

1 event, soap box derby races (in this resolution referred to 

2 as the ‘‘event’’), on the Capitol Grounds. 

3 (b) DATE OF EVENT.—The event shall be held on 

4 June 17, 2017, or on such other date as the Speaker of 

5 the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules 

6 and Administration of the Senate jointly designate. 

7 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Under conditions to be prescribed 

9 by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police 

10 Board, the event shall be— 

11 (1) free of admission charge and open to the 

12 public; and 

13 (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of 

14 Congress. 

15 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall 

16 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities 

17 incident to all activities associated with the event. 

18 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS. 

19 Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Cap20 itol, the sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol 

21 Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and 

22 other related structures and equipment as may be required 

23 for the event. 
3 

•HCON 36 EH 

1 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS. 

2 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police 

3 Board are authorized to make such additional arrange4 ments as may be required to carry out the event. 

5 SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

6 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce7 ment of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of 

8 title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertise9 ments, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, 

10 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol 

11 Grounds, with respect to the event. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 25, 2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 36 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 

Greater Washington Soap Box Derby.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Commission Monthly Case Activity for June 2017

1. Cases Pending Beginning of Month					26

2. Cases Added to Docket						  0

3. Cases Subtracted From Docket					  0

4. Total Cases Pending End of Month					26
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

Commission Monthly Case Activity for June 2023

1. Cases Pending Beginning of Month 14 

2. Cases Added to Docket 3 

Shawn D. Purvis d/b/a/ Purvis Home Improvement Co., Inc. (an individual) 

and Purvis Home Improvement Co., Inc. (in the alternative) 

Nos. 19-1054, 19-1056, and 19-1905

Directed for Review on June 29, 2023

3. Cases Subtracted from Docket 0 

 

 

4. Total Cases Pending End of Month 17
consent.htm
















Exhibit 10(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-141763) pertaining to Lincoln Life & Annuity Variable Annuity Account H, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 13, and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2010, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 7, 2010, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Variable Annuity Account H.







                                      /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


 


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


October 27, 2010
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50049

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HECTOR RAUL SANCHEZ-LAMA and

CRUZ TERRAZAS-ROBLES,

Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-96-CR-300

- - - - - - - - - -

August 1, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Sanchez-Lama and Cruz Terrazas-Robles appeal from

their convictions of possession with intent to distribute

marijuana and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

marijuana. Robles contends that the evidence was insufficient to

support his convictions and that the district court erred by

granting Sanchez’s motion in limine to preclude the testimony of

codefendant Manuel Gurrola about a postarrest statement allegedly
No. 97-50049

-2-

made by Sanchez in jail. Sanchez contends that the district

court erred by limiting his closing argument to 10 minutes. 

The evidence was sufficient to support Robles’s convictions. 

Sanchez, after being stopped while driving a van containing

forty-two bundles of marijuana, led agents to the van that Robles

and Gurrola subsequently came to retrieve. Both vans were laden

with marijuana in amounts meant for distribution; police smelled

marijuana upon opening the van Gurrola was driving. Robles had

on his person a map of the area in which the second van was

picked up. Gurrola and Robles drove around suspiciously in the

Scout before stopping at the van. Robles, driving the Scout, led

Gurrola from the place where the van had been left. The jury

could have found beyond a reasonable doubt an agreement to

transport and distribute marijuana; that Robles knew about the

agreement; and that Robles voluntarily participated in the

agreement. United States v. Ayala, 887 F.2d 62, 67 (5th Cir.

1989). The jury also could have found beyond a reasonable doubt

that Robles and Gurrola jointly and knowingly exercised control

of the marijuana in the van they retrieved, and that they

intended to distribute that marijuana. See United States v.

Velgar-Vivero, 8 F.3d 236, 241 (5th Cir. 1993).

Robles indicated his ascent to any ruling the district court

might make regarding Gurrola’s proposed testimony. He may not

complain of any error he invited. Tel-Phonic Servs., Inc. v. TBS

Int’l, Inc., 975 F.2d 1134, 1137 (5th Cir. 1992).
No. 97-50049

-3-

Sanchez has not shown that the 10-minute limitation was an

abuse of discretion. He does not indicate what credibility

issues he would have raised regarding any particular witnesses;

nor does he indicate any particular issues he would have raised

had he had more time to argue to the jury. United States v.

Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782, 793 (5th Cir.)(internal and concluding

citations omitted), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 620 (1996), and

cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1002, 1324 (1997).

AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ALLOC, INC., BERRY FINANCE N.V., AND

VALINGE INNOVATION AB (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 

VALINGE ALUMINUM AB),

Plaintiff-Appellants, 

v. 

PERGO, L.L.C., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________ 

2011-1094 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Wisconsin in Case No. 00-CV-0999, 

Judge Rudolph T. Randa. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

DAVID I. ROCHE, Baker & McKenzie, LLP, of Chicago, 

Illinois, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the 

brief were DANIEL J. O’CONNOR, EDWARD K. RUNYAN and 

DANIEL A. TALLITSCH. 
DONALD R. DUNNER, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for 

defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were JOHN M.

WILLIAMSON and MOLLY R. SILFEN. Of counsel on the 

brief were EDWARD V. FILARDI, DOUGLAS R. NEMEC and 

EDWARD L. TULIN, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & 

Flom, LLP, of New York, New York. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, BRYSON, and LINN, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

July 28, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
**Exhibit 32**

 

# **CERTIFICATION**

# ** **

Pursuant to****18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Canterbury ParkHolding Corporation (the “Company”) herby certify that:

 

(1)   The accompanying quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2008 fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|                      | **CANTERBURY  PARK HOLDING CORPORATION**     |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                      | ** **                                   |
| Dated: May 15,  2008 | /s/ Randall D. Sampson                       |
|                      | Randall D. Sampson,                          |
|                      | President, and Chief  Executive Officer      |
|                      |                                         |
| Dated: May 15,  2008 | /s/ David C. Hansen                          |
|                      | David C. Hansen,                             |
|                      | Vice President, and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

1

----
United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v. OSHRC DOCKET NO. 

XYZ CORP., 

 Respondent.

Respondent’s Withdrawal of Notice of Contest

Respondent, XYZ Corp., by the undersigned representative, withdraws its Notice of Contest in 

the case with the docket number above, pursuant to 29 CFR 2200.102 of the Rules of Procedure 

for the Commission.

[Company official’s name]

XYZ Corp.

123 Street

City, State Zip Code

March 29, 2019
Exhibit 32.1



Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Ladies and Gentleman:



In connection with the quarterly report of Featherlite, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Conrad D. Clement, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Company.



|             |  |                        
|------------ |  | -----------------------
|May 12, 2005 |  | /s/ Conrad D. Clement  
|             |  | Chief Executive Officer



26
----

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 129/2005 der Kommission vom 20. Januar 2005 zur Einreihung von bestimmten Waren in die Kombinierte Nomenklatur und zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 955/98 der Kommission

(Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 25 vom 28. Januar 2005)

Seite 39, der Anhang erhält folgende Fassung:

„ANHANG

----
----

| Subject: | Product      Assurance - First-Look InspectionProgram |
|----------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| Reference: | Purchase      Agreement No. 3219 (the Purchase Agreement) between The Boeing Company      (Boeing) and American Airlines, Inc. (Customer) relating to Model 787      aircraft |
|------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|
|   |   |
|   |   |
|   |   |
|   |   |
|   |   |
|   |   |
|   |   |
|   |   |
|   |   |

----

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

| (i)   | For      the 787 aircraft only: |
|-----------------|---------------------------------|

| (ii)   | For      all other aircraft models: |
|------------------|-------------------------------------|

| (i)   | For      the 787 aircraft only: |
|-----------------|---------------------------------|

| (ii)   | For      all other aircraft models: |
|------------------|-------------------------------------|

| (i)   | [CONFIDENTIAL      PORTION OMITTED AND FILED |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------|

| (ii)   | [CONFIDENTIAL      PORTION OMITTED AND FILED |
|------------------|----------------------------------------------|

----