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





I,
      Brian
      P. Alessi, certify that:





1.  I
      have reviewed this Form
      10-Q of Emerging Vision, 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;





(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;





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;





(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:       August
                14, 2007











/s/
                Brian P. AlessiBrian
                P. AlessiChief
                Financial Officer
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF **TEXAS** AUSTIN ;rrrrr,c.“IPa ,n-o.*s. QCIWBALHon. Rxnost Coke?, mge 8 Article 9101,R%iia%4 divfl Statutes~ protl& ing for noratnetio~o by politiaal parttcln, r8aL in pati _ as followsr
#### L & M Plumbing, Inc., Respondent, v Harris A. Decker et al., Appellants, Window-Tech, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[631 NYS2d 393]

In an action, *inter alia,*to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendants Harris Andrew Decker and Anna Spector Decker appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered March 2,1994, which denied their motion, in effect, to set aside an oral decision of the same court which, after a nonjury trial awarded damages to the plaintiff and the defendant Window-Tech, Inc., and (2) a judgment of the same court dated March 14, 1994, which is in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $63,756 and the defendant Window-Tech, Inc. in the sum of $39,493.74, including punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying a motion to set aside a decision *(see, Behrens v Behrens,*143 AD2d 617); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, and the complaint is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court erred in awarding judgment in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant Window-Tech, Inc. (hereinafter Window-Tech) since the plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien terminated by operation of law on May 9, 1993, three years after it was *620extended by the plaintiffs filing of the notice of pendency, and the respondent Window-Tech failed to submit any evidence showing that it timely filed such a notice of pendency *(see,*Lien Law § 17; CPLR 6513; *Sunny Constr. v Revella,*131 AD2d 560; *Modular Steel Sys. v Avlis Contr. Corp.,*89 AD2d 891; *Spartan Concrete Corp. v Harbour Val. Homes,*71 AD2d 950).

Moreover, neither the plaintiff nor Window-Tech has demonstrated that the defendants diverted and/or misappropriated trust assets in violation of Lien Law article 3-A *(cf., Caristo Constr. Corp. v Diners Fin. Corp.,*21 NY2d 507; *South Carolina Steel Corp. v Miller,*170 AD2d 592; *Schwadron v Freund,*69 Misc 2d 342). Accordingly, there was no basis for awarding judgment in favor of the plaintiff and Window-Tech.

We have examined the plaintiffs remaining contentions in support of an affirmance and find them to be without merit.

In light of the foregoing determination, we need not address the appellants’ remaining contentions. Mangano, P. J., Joy, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# PACAF Hosts Annual India Executive Steering Group Conference 

By Tech. Sgt. Jimmie PikePacific Air Forces Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
----

----

|   | 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      Registrant. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       | Wireless Age Communications,      Inc. |                                      |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                       |                                   |                                      |   |
| Date: August      29, 2008 | By:                                    |  /s/ Gary Hokkanen                   |   |
|                       |                                   | Name: Gary      Hokkanen             |   |
|                       |                                   | Title :      Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                       |                                   |                                      |   |
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50696 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-00-CR-617-1

-------------------- December 12, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Luis Rodriguez-Martinez appeals the 70-month term of imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rodriguez-Martinez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior removal following an aggravated felony conviction. Rodriguez-Martinez argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause because it permitted the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, a factNo. 01-50696 -2- which increased the statutory maximum sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. Rodriguez-Martinez thus contends that his sentence is invalid and argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Rodriguez-Martinez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). RodriguezMartinez’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### LOUISA C. WELCH and others v. E. O. MACY Administrator with the will annexed of W. B. Welch.

*Homestead*— Personal *Property Exemption*— Minor *Children.*

A dies, leaving a widow and minor children (having devised his estate by will) and thereafter the widow dies, neither of them having applied for a homestead or personal property exemption *-r Held,*that the minor children of A are entitled to a homestead but not to the personal property exemption.

*(Johnson-v. Cross,*66 N. C. 167, cited and approved.)

CONTROVERSY, without action (C. C. P. § 315,) submitted on the 16th of February, 1878, to Seymour, J.

The plaintiffs are minor children applying for a homestead and personal property exemption. Their father, W. B. Welch, devised his estate after payment of his debts, and died ; and their mother died soon afterwards, neither one having applied for such exemptions.

His Honor held that they were entitled to said exemptions and ordered that the same be laid off and assigned according to law. From this judgment the defendant appealed.

*Messrs. Merrimon, Fuller Ashe,*for plaintiffs.

*Mr. W. PI. Pace,*for defendant.

Faircloth, J.

(After stating the case as above) Upon these facts our decision is that plaintiffs are entitled to a homestead, but are not entitled to the personal property exemption. The statutes applicable to the case are cited, and the reasons for the decision are given in *Johnson v. Cross,*66 N. C. 167, where the same question was presented and maturely considered. A repetition of them here would be surplus work;

*241It was urged before us that the will being a mode of conveyance without the wife’s dissent had the effect of vesting title to the property in the creditors. Giving full force to the suggestion, — the title would have vested in the credi*tors,*— eo *instanti*the homestead right attached by force of the Constitution and statutes, and then upon what principle would the creditor have the preference ? But it is difficult to perceive how the testator’s will, coupled with the wife’s silence for a few weeks, could have the same effect as his deed, with the assent and signature of his wife signified on her private examination, as required by Art. X § 8 of the Constitution.

If the Legislature should re-enact § 10 of the Homestead Act, and amend § 7 by striking out the words “as guaranteed by Art. N of the Constitution of this State,” a new question would arise, to-wit, the power of the Legislature to extend the personal property exemption to minors in a case like the present, or to increase the aínount thereof, which would admit of discussion.

It will be certified as the opinion of this Court, that the plaintiffs are entitled to have a homestead set apart, but are not entitled to a personal property exemption. 'With this modification the judgment of His Honor is affirmed.

PbR Curiam. • Judgment modified.
RFS2 Program Amendments Phone and Meeting Log 

Substantive telephone and in-person meetings between EPA personnel and non-government 

stakeholders following publication of the RFS2 Program Amendments Direct Final Rule and 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on May 10, 2010. 

Date EPA person Stakeholder Purpose of Call/Meeting and Topic 

Discussed 

5/25/10 Megan Brachtl, 

John Weihrauch 

Clayton 

McMartin, 

RINSTAR 

Proposed amendments to RFS2 regulations 

related to treatment of RINs under EMTS 

(phone call) 

8/11/10 Paul 

Argyropoulos, 

Megan Brachtl, 

David Korotney, 

Robert Larson, 

Madison Le 

POET Energy Proposed amendments to 

definitions/application requirements of 

advanced technologies under RFS2 (phone 

call) 

9/27/10 Paul 

Argyropoulos, 

Megan Brachtl, 

Dallas 

Burkholder, 

Barry Garelick, 

David Korotney, 

Robert Larson, 

Madison Le 

Illinois 

Renewable Fuels 

Association and 

member 

companies: 

Patricia Sharkey 

(McGuire Woods 

LLP), 

Steffen Mueller 

(UIC), 

Jason Marquis 

(Marquis Energy), 

David Loos 

(ILRFA), 

Tracey Olson 

(Granite Falls 

Energy), 

Greg Loest 

(Integral Energy) 

Proposed amendments to definition of 

“permitted capacity” and advanced 

technologies under proposed RFS2 program 

amendments (in-person meeting)
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Appendix D. Student Survey Invitation Letter ▌pg. D-1

Appendix D. Student Survey Invitation Letter
OMB Supporting Statement Study of Enhanced College Advising in Upward Bound

Abt Associates Inc. Appendix D. Student Survey Invitation Letter ▌pg. D-2

Dear [RESPONDENT NAME],

Hello! As an eleventh grader in Upward Bound, you have access to many educational opportunities 

designed to help you succeed in high school and make the transition to college. 

Your Upward Bound program is participating in a research study of Enhanced College Advising in 

Upward Bound, funded by the U.S. Department of Education and conducted by Abt Associates and 

Survey Research Management (SRM).

You have been selected to participate in a survey that will be part of this study!

The U.S. Department of Education would like to know your opinions, experiences, and awareness 

about the going to college. 

Please follow the link below to begin and complete the survey.

http://www.UBDemo.com/XXXXX

Login ID: XXXX

Password: XXXXXXXX

Your participation in the survey is voluntary, and you may choose not to answer a question or to stop 

at any point. You can still take part in Upward Bound even if you do not take the survey.

The survey should take about 15 minutes to complete. 

We know your time is valuable and thank you in advance for your participation!

Sincerely,

Alina Martinez, Ed.D.

Study Project Director

Study Contacts

Study Website: www.UBDemo.com

Study Email: UBDemo @abtassoc.com

Study Toll-Free Number: 1-855-489-0480

Protecting your privacy is very important to us. The study reports will not include your name or the name of your project. We will not share 

information that identifies you to anyone outside the study team or study collaborators, except as required by law.

If you have any questions about participating in the study, please call 1-855-489-0480, or email UBDemo@abtassoc.com . If you have any 

questions about subjects’ rights, please contact Abt’s Institutional Review Board Administrator, Katie Speanburg, by phone at 

(877) 520-6835 [toll-free number]. If you have questions about Upward Bound, please contact your Upward Bound project director.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# The USS Olympia transits the Puget Sound to begin the inactivation and decommissioning process

The Los Angeles-class fast-attack submarine USS Olympia (SSN 717) transits the Puget Sound, arriving in Bremerton, Washington, and is scheduled to begin the inactivation and decommissioning process at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard The 35-year-old Olympia was commissioned on Nov. 17, 1984.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LARRY W. KIRK,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

R. J. RACKLEY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15667

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01866-FCDCMK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Larry W. Kirk, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process

violations arising from his continued confinement in administrative segregation. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals

FILED

JUL 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-15667

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Watson v. Weeks, 436 F.3d 1152,

1157 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kirk’s due process claims because, to

the extent that he demonstrated a liberty interest in avoiding continued

confinement in administrative segregation, Kirk’s complaint demonstrates that he

was afforded all the process to which he was constitutionally entitled. See

Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining due

process procedures to which prisoners with liberty interests in their placements are

entitled, and noting that some sort of periodic review of an inmate’s continued

segregated confinement is necessary), abrogated in part on other grounds by

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

Kirk’s motion for clarification of information, filed July 28, 2011, is

construed as a reply brief.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 33-45324, No. 33-57339, No. 333-108312,No. 333-111093, No. 333-112450 and No. 333-141486), and S-8 (No. 2-96127, No. 33-24068, No. 33-41434, No. 33-53733, No. 33-55449, No. 33-45970, No. 33-14458, No. 33-50149, No. 33-55456,No. 333-15509, No. 333-76939, No. 333-67008, No. 333-64154, No. 333-59668, No. 333-89318, No. 333-98619, No. 333-98623, No. 333-125005 and No. 333-133814) of Wyeth of our report datedFebruary 28, 2008 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Stockholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

    Florham Park, New Jersey 

    February 28, 2008