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



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Bonnie L. Herron, the Chief Financial Officer of Intelligent Systems
Corporation, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended September 30, 2004 of Intelligent Systems Corporation;  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
quarterly 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 such 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 registrants board
of directors:  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies 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 15, 2004
    
    /s/ Bonnie L. HerronBonnie L. Herron
Chief Financial Officer
H. R. 220 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To authorize the expansion of an existing hydroelectric project, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TERROR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT UPPER HIDDEN 

BASIN DIVERSION AUTHORIZATION. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

(2) TERROR LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT.—The term 

‘‘Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project’’ means the project identified 

in section 1325 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3212), and which is Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project number 2743. 

(3) UPPER HIDDEN BASIN DIVERSION EXPANSION.—The term 

‘‘Upper Hidden Basin Diversion Expansion’’ means the expansion of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project as generally 

described in Exhibit E to the Upper Hidden Basin Grant 

Application dated July 2, 2014, and submitted to the Alaska 

Energy Authority Renewable Energy Fund Round VIII by 

Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION.—The licensee for the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project may occupy not more than 20 acres of Federal 

land to construct, operate, and maintain the Upper Hidden Basin 

Diversion Expansion without further authorization of the Secretary 

of the Interior or under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.). 

(c) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—The Upper Hidden Basin Diversion 

Expansion shall be subject to appropriate terms and conditions 

included in an amendment to a license issued by the Commission 

pursuant to the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), 

including section 4(e) of that Act (16 U.S.C. 797(e)), following an 
H. R. 220—2 

environmental review by the Commission under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### WALTON *vs.*MOSES SMITH.

It is the rule of this Court, fas in every other Court of errors, that he, who alleges error, must show iti The judgment appealed from must stand aa correct, unless it is shown to be incorrect.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Henderson County, at the Spring Term, 1846, his Honor Judge Pearson presiding.

*521This is action on a guarantee, alleged to be contained in a letter, addressed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The case is as follows. The defendant lives in the County of Henderson, in this State, and, in January 1839, wrote to the plaintiff, who lives in the City of Charleston, a letter of credit, in favor of the two men, Posey and Lane» This letter was duly delivered to the plaintiff by Posey, and the plaintiff agreed to furnish him goods, which he did to the amount of $186, for which Posey gave him a note in the name of himself and Lane and payable six months thereafter. After this note came to maturity, the plaintiff sued Posey and Lane upon it, obtained judgment but failed to collect all that was due, in consequence of their inability to pay. This action was then commenced and the plaintiff obtained a judgment for the balance, due on the note, from which the defendant appealed to this Court.

*N. W- Woodfin,*for the plaintiff.

*Baxter,*for the defendant.

Nash, J.

Many objections were made by the defendant, to the recovery of the plaintiff, none of which is it necessa« ry for us to examine, as an obstacle has arisen here growing out of the case as stated, which is decisive of the cause. The defendant sets forth in his bill of exceptions that the plaintiff read in evidence, a letter of the defendant, dated January 1839, a copy of which marked A is sent as a part of the case, No such letter or copy of a letter is among the papers in the cause. At the last Term of the Court, when we were called on to look into the case, its absence was detected and supposing it might by mistake have been retained by the Clerk of Rutherford Superior Court, where the cause was tried, upon the suggestion of a diminution of the record, a *certiorari*was issued. A certified copy of the record, as it remains in his office, has been transmitted to us without containing *522the required paper. It is evident, without it or an agreement between the parties as to its contents, the Court cannot determine the questions raised by the defendant. It is the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, that was before his Honor who tried the cause, and the whole of the charge addressed to the jury was made in reference to it. It is the rule in this Court, as in every other Court of *errors,*that he, who alleges error, must shew it. The judgment appealed from must stand as correct, until it is shown to be incoreot. The defendant has made that letter a part of his case ; it is not here to be seen and considered by the Court; it is admitted to have been lost, and the parties cannot agree as to its contents. We are compelled therefore to say we see no error in the judgment below.

*fm*Curum. Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,199
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,303
<ALLOWANCES>                                        50
<INVENTORY>                                      1,240
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           6,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,079
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,750
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,006
<SALES>                                         32,168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,168
<CGS>                                           21,764
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,764
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,734
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 648
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,022
<INCOME-TAX>                                       190
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,832
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,832
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41


</TABLE>
# C_2005093EN.01003001.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/30

---

Action brought on 25 January 2005 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-31/05)

(2005/C 93/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 January 2005 by Sergio Rossi S.p.A., established in San Mauro Pascoli (Italy), represented by A. Ruo, lawyer.

K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG, established in Weilheim (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the applicant's costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | The word mark ‘ROSSI’ for goods in class 25 (Outer and underclothing; gloves, collar protectors, scarves, neckties, headgear) — application No 876 094 |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Sergio Rossi |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | The national and international, word and figurative marks ‘SERGIO ROSSI’ for goods class 25 (articles of clothing, including boots, shoes and slippers, scarves, neck-ties, ...) |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Upholding of the opposition |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division |
| Pleas in law: | Violation of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94. |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG

Community trade mark concerned:

The word mark ‘ROSSI’ for goods in class 25 (Outer and underclothing; gloves, collar protectors, scarves, neckties, headgear) — application No 876 094

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Sergio Rossi

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

The national and international, word and figurative marks ‘SERGIO ROSSI’ for goods class 25 (articles of clothing, including boots, shoes and slippers, scarves, neck-ties, ...)

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Upholding of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law:

Violation of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94.

---
#### Estate of Papka: Skotzke, Administratrix, Appellant, vs. Stachowski and others, Respondents.

Appeal from orders of the county court of Milwaukee county dated March 15 and 21, 1927: John C. Karel, Judge.

Claim as of Kosiedowski and others against the estate. Orders in favor of claimants, from which the administratrix appeals.

For the appellant: *Arthur H. Koenitser*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents: *H. O. Wolfe*and *E. G. Rahr,*both of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Orders affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1I, Richard K. Crump, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sterling Chemicals, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 15, 2007           /s/ RICHARD K. CRUMP Richard K. Crump    President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 11



                           IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                   (Amounts in Thousands except Per Share Data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                    Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended
                                                      September 30,          September 30,
                                                 ----------------------------------------------
                                                    1995        1996       1995        1996
                                                 ----------------------------------------------
<S>                                              <C>         <C>       <C>          <C> 
Net income (loss) applicable to
  common stockholders                            $  (822)    $   --    $ (1,355)    $   417
                                                 =======     ======    ========     =======

Weighted Average Shares:

  Common Stock - Voting                               --      9,627          --      8,538
  Common Stock - Non-voting                           --        500          --        443
  Class A Common Stock                                45         --          36          5
  Series A1 Preferred Stock                          987         --         987         15
  Series A2 Preferred Stock                        1,935         --       1,953        219
  Series A3 Preferred Stock                           --         --          --         97
  Series C   Preferred Stock                       4,810         --       4,810        544
                                                 -------     ------    --------     ------

Weighted average shares outstanding                7,777     10,127       7,786      9,861

Dilutive effect of stock options 
  considered common stock equivalents 
  computed under the treasury stock 
  method using the average price                     --         378          --        240
                                                 -------     ------    --------     ------

Weighted average common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding                   7,777      10,505       7,786     10,101
                                                 =======     ======    ========     =======

Net income (loss) per common and
  common equivalent share                        $(0.11)     $ 0.00    $  (0.17)    $  0.04
                                                 =======     ======    ========     =======

</TABLE>
# C_2004322EN.01001101.xml

| 29.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 322/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 322/11

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — DG EAC No 87/2004

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

Support for television broadcasting of european audiovisual works

(2004/C 322/06)

1.   OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION

This call for proposals is based on Council Decision on the implementation of a programme encouraging the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (Media Plus — Development, Distribution and Promotion 2001 — 2005) of 20 December 2000 and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 17 January 2001 (OJ L 13, pp 34-43).

Official Journal of the European Communities

The objectives of the programme is to promote the movement, in the Community and outside it, of European television programmes produced by independent companies by encouraging cooperation between broadcasters, on one hand, and independent European distributors and producers, on the other hand.

2.   ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS

This notice is aimed at European companies whose activities contribute to the attainment of the above objectives, and in particular to independent TV production companies.

Applicants must be established in one of the following countries:

| — | the 25 countries of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

the 25 countries of the European Union,

| — | the EFTA and EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, |
| --- | --- |

—

the EFTA and EEA countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway,

| — | the candidate country for EU membership: Bulgaria. |
| --- | --- |

—

the candidate country for EU membership: Bulgaria.

3.   BUDGET AND DURATION OF PROJECTS

The budget for 2005 will be minimum EUR 12 million.

The maximum financial contribution which may be awarded is EUR 500 000 per work.

The financial contribution awarded will in no event exceed 12,5 % of the production budget submitted by the producer for fiction and animated films and 20 % of the production budget for documentary films.

The maximum duration of the projects is 37 or 49 (in the case of series and animation projects) months.

4.   DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS

Applications must be submitted to the Commission by no later than 4 February 2005, 4 May 2005 and 9 September 2005.

5.   FULL DETAILS

The full text of the call for proposals, together with the application forms, can be found at the following Internet address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/media/distr_en.html.

Applications must comply with all the terms of the guidelines and be submitted on the forms provided.

---
Exhibit 10.7

         The Purchase Agreement Assignment is incorporated by reference from the
Company's Form 10K filed with the Commission for the period ending December 31,
2000. The four additional Participation Agreement Assignments are substantially
identical in all material respects to the filed Purchase Agreement Assignment
except as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft (Tail No.)   Closing Date         Owner Participant

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N362ML*               October 19, 2000     Silvermine River Finance One, Inc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N363ML                November 29, 2000    Aircraft Services Corporation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N364ML                January 30, 2001     Aircraft Services Corporation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N365ML                March 19, 2001       Aircraft Services Corporation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N366ML                April 19, 2001       Castle Harbour-I Limited-Liability
                                           Company

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------
*   Filed document
Note to Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0837

At 10 a.m. on November 22, 2010, at 1310 LStreet, Washington, D.C., EPA representatives Ragan Tate (OGC) and John Schakenbach (OAR), and DOJ representative Austin Say lor met with Lauren Freeman of Hunton & Williams representing the Utility

Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) in settlement discussions related to the Petition for Review filed b y UARG relating to January 24, 2008 amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emi ssion Testing provisions of 40 CFR Part 75.