alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2
                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Linda Bryson, Chief Financial Officer of Quantum Companies, Inc. certify
 that:

(1) I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-QSB of Quantum Companies,
Inc;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this periodic 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 periodic
report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this periodic 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 periodic report;

(4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 periodic report is being
     prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures as of the date within 90 days prior to filing date of this
     periodic report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)presented in this periodic report our conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

(5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee


     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

(6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
periodic report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: August 4, 2005                /s/ Linda Bryson
                                                      -----------------
                                                       Linda Bryson
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21243-21244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08860]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the

[[Page 21244]]

proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the 
review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company 
complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 
1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted 
throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 14, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Gerald C. Tsai, Director, 
Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105-1579:
    1. Western Alliance Bancorporation, Phoenix, Arizona; to merge with 
Bridge Capital Holdings, and thereby indirectly acquire its subsidiary 
bank, Bridge Bank, National Association, both in San Jose, California.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 14, 
2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-08860 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 383 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in additional phases 

of the project to reclaim and reuse water within the service area of 

the Orange County Water District in California. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2009 

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. ROYCE, 

Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Mr. CAMPBELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate 

in additional phases of the project to reclaim and reuse 

water within the service area of the Orange County 

Water District in California. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER RECLAMA4 TION PROJECT. 

5 Section 1624 of the Reclamation Wastewater and 

6 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102– 

7 575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h–12j) is amended— 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 383 IH

1 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘PHASE 1 

2 OF’’; and 

3 (2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘phase 1 of’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Analyzed

Location Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Bronzite II 2 1 3

 2 1 2 5

 28 28 28 33 68 103 288

 6 8 40 40 94

 1 1

 2 2

 3 42 25 35 37 142

 12 72 71 72 71 298

 5 13 52 27 45 42 184

 30 40 55 147 272

 17 55 39 49 53 40 253

 18 11 131 110 133 123 526

 12 19 43 29 54 157

 10 213 96 56 375

Total 72 136 430 620 627 715 - - - - - - - - 2,600

2,600 

Mine Names Remove, but available is needed.

 2,392

2011 2012

Rock Dust - "CDEM" Samples

A N A L Y Z E D

 208
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6774

TYRONE ROBERSON , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN, LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 2:18

- cv
- 01286

- RMG )

Submitted : October 26, 2018 Decided: November 6, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Tyrone Lamar Roberson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tyrone Lamar Roberson seeks to appeal the district court ’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended
that relief be denied and advised Roberson that fai lure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the
recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate r eview of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Roberson has waived appellate revi ew by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
LETTER OF INTENT TEMPLATE

(Use Appropriate Letterhead)

MEMORANDUM FOR CONSIDERATION FOR INCLUSION ON SENIOR ENLISTED BENCH

FROM: Applicant Rank and Name

SUBJECT: Letter of Intent for Rank and Name

1. I [Rank and Full Name] request inclusion in the National Guard Senior Enlisted Leadership Bench 

Program. I understand that by requesting inclusion on the Bench, I may be selected to serve on short 

notice in a position that best represents the National Guard regardless of personal preference (only if 

applying for assignment opportunities).

2. Explain why you would like to be considered for inclusion on the Senior Enlisted Bench. Explain

how an assignment through the Senior Enlisted Bench Program and/or an Executive-Level Education 

opportunity would benefit your State/National Guard mission.

3. Explain your abilities to maximize the National Guard’s contributions to execute the National 

Defense Strategy.

4. Indicate if you have any previous adverse actions or are pending any adverse action. Indicate

whether you have any referral evaluations on file. Indicate if you meet current height and weight 

standards. 

Limit to one page.

Signature Block: Applicant
H. R. 3808 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a 

notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located 

when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Interstate Recognition of 

Notarizations Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL COURTS. 

Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization 

made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws 

of a State other than the State where the Federal court is located 

if— 

(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and 

(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s 

authority, is used in the notarization; or 

(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information 

is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant. 

SEC. 3. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE COURTS. 

Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State 

shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public 

licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than 

the State where the court is located if— 

(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and 

(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s 

authority, is used in the notarization; or 

(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information 

is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant. 

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act: 

(1) ELECTRONIC RECORD.—The term ‘‘electronic record’’ has 

the meaning given that term in section 106 of the Electronic 

Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 

7006). 

(2) LOGICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH.—Seal information is ‘‘logically associated with’’ an electronic record if the seal information is securely bound to the electronic record in such a manner 
H. R. 3808—2 

as to make it impracticable to falsify or alter, without detection, 

either the record or the seal information. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
* 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. 97-10391 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MICHAEL MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-124-A-13

- - - - - - - - - - November 12, 1997 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael Maxwell appeals the denial of his motion for leave to withdraw his guilty plea to the charges of bank theft and aiding and abetting bank theft. A district court may permit withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing “if the defendant shows any fair and just reason.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e). A district court’s decision regarding plea withdrawal is given broad discretion and may only be reversed due to an abuse of that discretion. United States v. Carr , 740 F.2d 339, 344 (5th Cir.No. 97-10391 -2- 1984). The burden is on the defendant to prove that withdrawal is warranted. Id. Maxwell’s sole justification for withdrawal of his guilty plea is his assertion that he did know that his actions were illegal at the time he committed them. However, at his plea hearing and in the factual resume signed by him, Maxwell admitted that he committed the offense with the intent to steal. We conclude that the district court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion and Maxwell’s motion was properly denied. Maxwell further argues that the district court abused its discretion by summarily denying his motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. A district court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing when a motion does not present sufficient factual issues with adequate support. United States v. Rome , No. 92-2499, at 4-5 (5th Cir. Sept. 7, 1993)(per curiam) (unpublished)(citing United States v. Fuller , 769 F.2d 1095, 1099 (5th Cir. 1985)). In light of Maxwell’s withdrawal motion and its lack of evidentiary support, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.1



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Energy  Producers,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2003,  as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mel
Herzog,  Chairman and CEO of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 result of operations of
          the Company.

/s/ Mel Herzog
--------------
Mel Herzog
Chief Executive Officer
Date:  May 12, 2003
EXHIBIT 99.b



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Sr. Vice President of C&M Management Inc., and Director of Accounting of Boston Capital Corporation certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.



|                  | Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II Limited Partnership
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|                  |                                                      
|                  | By:                                                  
|                  |                                                      
|                  |                                                      
|                  | By:                                                  
|                  |                                                      
|                  |                                                      
|                  | By:                                                  
|                  |                                                      
|                  |                                                      
|Date:             |                                                      
|February 19, 2003 | By:                                                  
|                  |                                                      
|                  |                                                      
|                  |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10260

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LYNN SMIRL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-3-16

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lynn Smirl has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Smirl has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and 

the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Smirl’s 

response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10260 Document: 00514280118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
No. 17-10260

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Smirl’s motion 

for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. 

 Case: 17-10260 Document: 00514280118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and statement of income found on pages F-2 and F-3 of
the Company's Form 10-K for the twelve months ended December 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such consolidated financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                 3,689
<SECURITIES>                           6,894
<RECEIVABLES>                        105,044
<ALLOWANCES>                          (4,054)
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      83,502
<PP&E>                                30,372
<DEPRECIATION>                        (5,665)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       226,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 35,912
<BONDS>                               73,844
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     11
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                            99,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         226,060
<SALES>                               72,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      69,606
<CGS>                                 36,810
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         54,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      (6,499)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     7,085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       14,077
<INCOME-TAX>                           5,870
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    8,207
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           8,207
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.74



</TABLE>