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

Certification by the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I,
Stephen E. Sterrett, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Simon Property Group, L.P.;

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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for
the registrant and have:



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 (or persons performing the equivalent function):



|Date: March 16, 2006 |  |                                                                                                                                              
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | /s/STEPHEN E. STERRETTStephen E. Sterrett
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Simon Property Group, Inc., General Partner

122

---



QuickLinks
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

No. PD-0759-13

JOYCE MCMILLIN STURDIVANT, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

MCLENNAN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of murder and attempted capital murder and sentenced to

thirty years and fifteen years confinement. On appeal, Appellant claimed that the trial court

erred in taxing as court costs the amounts paid to attorneys pro tem for the State and the

expenses for the State’s investigators and experts. The Court of Appeals held that Appellant

failed to preserve this claim because she did not complain to the trial court and she did not

file any post-judgment motions complaining that the assessment of these court costs was

improper. Appellant petitioned this Court for discretionary review.
2

When the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in this case, it did so without the benefit

of this Court’s opinion in Landers v. State, 402 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

Therefore, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for that court to

consider the effect of Landers, if any, on its reasoning and analysis in this case.

Delivered: October 9, 2013

Publish
---

---

Exhibit 15.1



| | Kesselman & Kesselman  Certified Public Accountants
  Trade Tower, 25 Hamered Street
  Tel Aviv 68125 Israel
  P.O Box 452 Tel Aviv 61003
  Telephone +972-3-7954555
  Facsimile +972-3-7954556
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File nos.
333-131991, 333-05670, 333-08824 and 333-12178) of Orckit Communications Ltd. of our
report dated June 22, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form
20-F.

|                 |                                    
|---------------- | -----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|Tel-Aviv, Israel | /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman          
|June 22, 2009    | Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
|                 |                                    



---

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6933

NATHANIEL AHEART LIVACCARI,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH STATE OF VIRGINIA, d/b/a State of Virginia, 

a/k/a Nancy Parr,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:16-cv-00685-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: November 8, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Aheart Livaccari, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Aheart Livaccari appeals the district court’s 

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Livaccari v. Commonwealth State 

of Virginia, No. 1:16-cv-00685-LMB-TCB (E.D. Va. June 24, 2016). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
 CERTIFICATION OF CUSTODIAN
  
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Electronic Corporate Filing Services, Inc. , a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on 10-QSB for the September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Curtis Wade Fox , Sole Officer/Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:
  
 
 (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.
   
 Dated: November 14, 2003
 /s/Curtis Wade Fox
 Curtis Wade Fox
 Sole Officer/Director
# F **ourth Court of Appeals**
**San Antonio, Texas**

January 11, 2023

No. 04

- 22

- 0042 0

- CR

Aaron POUCH

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court

, Kerr County, Texas Trial Court No. B19843

- 1 Honorable M. Rex Emerson , Judge P residing



### ORDER

After Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, o n November 22, 2022

, we notified Appellant that if he desire d to file a pro se brief, he must file it by January 3, 2023

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). On January 3, 2023 , Appellant filed a pro se motion for access to the appellate record.

We direct the clerk of this court to send Appellant, by first

- class mail, a pr inted copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s records at no cos t to Appella nt, and to mail the records within one day
of the date of this order.

Appellant also requested additional time to file a pro se brief. The request is granted.

We order Appellant to fil e his brief within forty days of the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d). If Appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief not later than thirty days after the date Appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. See id. R. 38.6(b).

If this cour t determines Appellant’s appeal is frivolous, Appellant may file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4. Appellant must file the petition with the Clerk of the C ourt of Criminal Appeals with in thirty days after this court issues its judgment. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2(a). The petition should be addressed to Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, P.O. Box 12308, Austin, Texas 78711.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is held in abeyance pending further order of this court._________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed th e seal of the said court on this 11th day of January, 2023

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06598

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

06598\06598_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

06598\06598_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 06598\06598_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06598\06598_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06598\06598_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06598\06598_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06598\Certification Statement_06598.pdf Plant certification statement

06598\Supporting Documentation\06598_Carson Ice Gen MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06598\Supporting Documentation\06598_Carson Ice Gen WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
[Civ. No. 9474.

Second Appellate District, Division One.

June 21, 1934.]

#### CHARLES B. MONTALBANO, Respondent, v. RAINBOW GARDENS, LTD. (a Corporation), Appellant.

Joseph Musgrove, Thomas H. Cannan and Fred 0. Mc-Girr for Appellant.

Bernstein & Spizer for Respondent.

THE COURT.

Appellant Rainbow Gardens, Ltd., having filed its brief on appeal from the judgment, respondent has presented his motion, under section 3 of Rule Y, to dismiss the appeal or affirm the judgment.

Respondent contends that the grounds of appeal are so unsubstantial as not to require further argument. But appellant has presented for discussion a question which should not be settled without further consideration. In appellant’s statement of questions involved, it asks for decision upon its claim that under the given statement of facts the special police officer, who committed the assault, was not a servant of the proprietor of the dance-hall acting within the scope of his employment as such servant. The authorities cited by appellant, and particularly the case of *380
      *Maggi*v. *Pompa,*105 Cal. App. 496 [287 Pac. 982], give to this question an importance which, ño doubt, will be recognized in respondent’s brief.

The motion to dismiss or affirm is denied.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton 

GILBERT MAURICE WOOD 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1521-05-1 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 18, 2005 

ATLANTIC COAST AIRLINES, INC. AND 

 AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Gilbert Maurice Wood, pro se, on brief). 

 (Edward H. Grove, III; Brault Palmer Grove White & Steinhilber 

LLP, on brief), for appellees. 

 Gilbert Maurice Wood appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission, 

which ruled that Wood waived and abandoned his right to a review of the deputy commissioner’s 

decision by failing to assign any specific errors to the deputy commissioner’s findings of fact or 

conclusions of law and failing to file a written statement. Conducting an independent review of 

the record, the commission also ruled that the record supported the deputy commissioner’s ruling 

that no “imposition, fraud, misrepresentation, or mutual mistake” existed as a basis upon which 

to rescind a compromise settlement approved on October 23, 2001. We have reviewed the 

record and the commission’s opinion, and we hold that this appeal is without merit. 

Accordingly, we affirm the commission’s decision for the reasons stated by the commission in 

its final opinion. See Wood v. Atlantic Coast Airlines, Inc., VWC File No. 201-01-48 (May 6, 

2005). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 -

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not 

aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
#### CONGER *vs.*CHAMBERLAIN.

APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, WALWORTH COUNTV.

Heard March 9.]

[Decided June 4, 1860.

*Bill of Exceptions*— Practice.

A bill of exceptions must be settled and signed by the circuit judge, or it will not be considered by the supreme court upon an appeal.

To entitle a party to review the questions decided in the court below, he must have his exceptions regularly settled, and made a part of the record.

The facts in this case are stated in the opinion of the court.

*N. iS. Murphy and E. Waheley,*for the appellant.

*Abbott, Gregory,*& *Pinney,*for the respondent.

*By the Court,*

Cole, J.

The notice of appeal in this case states that the appeal is taken from the order denying the motion for a new trial, and also from the final judgment. The undertaking, however, states that the appeal is from the final judgment, and we suppose we must so regard it. The errors complained of here are that the circuit court refused to give proper instructions, which were asked to be given by the appellant to the jury; and denied the motion for a new trial.

In the present state of this record it is impossible for us to review these objections. There is no bill tof exceptions, or case made and settled, embracing the exceptions taken upon the trial, which is indispensable in order to enable this court to review such exceptions. We find among the papers sent up by the clerk, what was undoubtedly prepared by the attorney for the appellant for a bill of exceptions. We also find on a separate paper what appears to be amendments prepared *188by the opposite counsel. But the amendments and exceptions do not appear to have ever been settled or acted upon by the circuit judge; nor is there any stipulation of the parties curing this omission. To entitle the party appellant to review the questions discussed upon the argument of this cause, he should have had his exceptions regularly settled, and signed by the circuit judge, and made them a part of the record. Otherwise this court cannot consider them as we have frequently decided.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
SHIRLEY JO FOREST, COPERSONAL 

REPRESENTATIVE,

Appellant,

v.

VICTOR KENNEDY, IN RE: 

THE ESTATE OF ALICIA 

MARIE FOREST,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-436

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County.

Kelvin C. Wells, Judge.

Paul Bailey and Mark H. Welton of Welton Law Firm, Crestview, for Appellant.

Clay B. Adkinson of Adkinson Law Firm, DeFuniak Springs, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>


                        VAN SNOWDON - COMPENSATION PROPOSAL


SALARY:        $250,000 per year

SALE FEE/OPTIONS:   In the event of a sale of or a binding commitment to sell
the company within 12 months, employee is to receive a cash fee as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Sale Price ($ millions)  UP TO 300      400       500       600       700
                         ---------      ---       ---       ---       ---
<S>                      <C>            <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Bonus ($000's)           750            1,000     1,500     2,500     5,000
</TABLE>

     For sale prices between the above threshold amounts, the bonus shall be
adjusted straight line pro-rata (i.e., $450M = $1,250K).  In the event of a sale
after first six months, amount of incentive above $750K minimum shall be reduced
by 10% (i.e., $500M = $1,350K).

     In the event there is no sale of the company as described above within the
12 month period and the employee is still employed by the company, employee
would receive options to purchase 200,000 shares at an exercise price of $8.00.

TERMINATION:  In the event of involuntary termination, employee shall have the
choice between the following:

     (A)  $750K termination payment plus, in the event of a sale of the company,
          any excess incentive over the $750K minimum which would be payable
          according to the above fee schedule.  If the employee is terminated
          within 12 month period, the incremental incentive fee would still be
          payable; or

     (A)  Options to purchase 200,000 shares at an exercise price of $8 per
          share.

FORGIVENESS OF DEBT:  In the event of a change of control or an IPO, the company
shall forgive the principal and interest on employee's currently outstanding
stock purchase loan.

REPLACE VANGUARD'S LONGEVITY BONUS:  A bonus of $71K shall be payable 1/15/99 so
long as employee is employed on those dates.

SIGNING BONUS:  $71K upon closing of purchase of the first J Series shares after
the last closing.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 20

- 00029

- CV

TEXAS MUTUAL INSURAN CE COMPANY

, Appellant

v.

VERACITY AVIATION LL C ; Robinson Helicopter Company; Gillespie Air Services, Inc.

and Gillespie Air Services, Inc. d/b/a Fredericksburg FBO; Eric A. Spitzer LLC; Gary D.

Monroe and J. Travis Monroe, as the representative of the Estate of Chester S. Monroe; and John

Doe, Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Chester E. Monroe,

Appellees

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14

- 472

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 25, 2020

MOTIO N TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion contains a certificate of

service to appellees, who have not opposed the motion. Therefore, we grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a). However, costs of appeal are taxed against appellant. See

id. 42.1(d) (requiring court to assess costs against the appellant absent agreement of the parties)

.

PER CURIAM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2148
JIMMIE HUBBARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:05-cv-00029-jlk) Submitted: December 7, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joel C. Cunningham, Jr., JOEL C. CUNNINGHAM, JR., P.C., Halifax, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael McGaughran, Regional Chief Counsel, William B. Reeser, Supervisory Attorney, Sandra Romagnole, Special Assistant, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jimmie Hubbard appeals the district court’s order rejecting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Hubbard a period of disability, disability insurance benefits, and supplemental social security income payments. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hubbard v. Comm’r of Social Security , No. 4:05-cv-00029-jlk (W.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001021810
<NAME>                        INTELIDATA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                2,055
<SECURITIES>                          9,304
<RECEIVABLES>                        18,767
<ALLOWANCES>                         (5,679)
<INVENTORY>                          23,020
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     47,821
<PP&E>                               11,900
<DEPRECIATION>                       (5,651)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       54,401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                15,457
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                 32
<OTHER-SE>                           37,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         54,401
<SALES>                              47,451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     60,309
<CGS>                                35,846
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        43,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    108,099
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      3,819
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (90,033)
<INCOME-TAX>                             61
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (90,094)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        (90,094)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (2.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (2.85)


</TABLE>