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




CERTIFICATION




I,
      Qiong
      (Laby) Wu, certify that:




1.
      I have
      reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31,
      2008, of Sinoenergy 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 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 my supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 my 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 fourth 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:




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 control over financial
      reporting.





Dated:
                May 20, 2008
            /s/
                Qiong (Laby) WuQiong
                (Laby) WuChief
                Financial Officer
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2009 - 1213 Directorate Identifier: 2009NM097AD
MD80 - 57A242 IN 01 --- 10/29/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket **MA Y BE VIEWED AT:**  Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:17-cr-215

Robert Anthony Liston, Jr. 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 22) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: January 22, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Zoran Corporation



|                                          |  |                             
|----------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Name                                      |  | Jurisdiction of Registration
|Zoran Taiwan Corporation                  |  | Taiwan                      
|Zoran Digital Technologies (Shenzhen) Ltd |  | China                       
|Zoran GmbH                                |  | Germany                     
|Zoran Microelectronics Ltd.               |  | Israel                      
|Zoran Japan K.K.                          |  | Japan                       
|Zoran Korea Ltd.                          |  | South Korea                 
|Zoran Asia Pacific Ltd.                   |  | Hong Kong                   
|Zoran UK Ltd.                             |  | United Kingdom              
|Zoran Electronics Singapore Pte. Ltd.     |  | Singapore                   
|Zoran International, Inc.                 |  | Delaware, U.S.A.            
|Oak Technology, LLC                       |  | Delaware, U.S.A.            
|Pixel Magic, Inc.                         |  | Delaware, U.S.A             
|Zoran France SA                           |  | France                      
|Zoran Sweden AB                           |  | Sweden
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1184. TIPPINS v. THE STATE.

This case was docketed by this court on January 9, 2019, and appellant’s brief

and enumerations of error were due January 29, 2019. As of the date of this order,

appellant has not filed a brief and enumeration of errors and has not requested an

extension of time in which to do so. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED

as abandoned pursuant to Court of Appeals Rules 13 and 23. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

February 11, 2019

02/11/2019
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1477 Preppedby Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 25 ) ll-J-1 6 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/31/2008 11:18:29 AM Sheet 25 of 36P. 2 "l-ll-Q S 11:2 8 FIBE R PR O CADILLA C ID=23 1 77 5 252 4 PQ1/S 2 

# A *^i-5' a 

# FA X TRANSMISSIO N II-I-H,

FIBE RPRO , INC . P o Bo x 3f t 2 . 163 7 MART Y PAUL . STREE T

CADILLAC . M l 4960 1 (231 ) 775-OI9 7 FAX : (231 ) 775-25S- 4 

### JA M 

### i 9 200 1 EP A AI R DOCKET To : Keit

h Barnett , Date : Januar y 11,200 0 Fax# : 734.62 2 016 2 ^Z ? SV/ ^V^OPages : 2 , including thi s cove r sheet . From : Jac k

E . Griffith s Snbject : EPA MACT Revie w COMMENTS :
LO W STYREN

E GELCOAT S While w e hav e enjoye

d som e succes s in usin g alower

styrene conten

t gelcoa t i n our operatio n (a s lo w a s 25% . CC P 969-WJ-45 7 White) ; som e ofou r busines s require s th e us e o f alternat e gelcoat s whic

h hav e highe

r styrene conten

t (ie ; 37.5 % Ferr

o 81-710170) . Th e latte r

i s asmal l percentage , but

still impact s our

emission rates . STYREN E SUPPRESSE

D RESIN S Ove r tw o decade s o f

laminatin g experience s hav e convinced m e tha t thi s famil y o f resin s produce s inferior , no n acceptabl e laminates . FLOW COATERS Havin g researche d flow coater s sinc e thei r first introductio n b y th e Venu s Compan y and mos t recently b y Magnum , Inc. ; i t i s eviden t that th e "flow coater " i s no t

designed for no r wil l i t function i n ou r

process . Whic

h i s amechanical , controlled , non-atomize d covere d spra

y up operation . Th e flow coater doe s no t allo w eithe

r aspra y patte mlarg e enoug h no r

enoug h volum

e ofresi n t o b e able t o produc e larg e fla t panel s i n an

y orderly timel y fashion .P. 3 81-11-8 8 11:2 8 FIBE R PR O CADILLA C ID=23 1 77 5 252 4 P82/8 2

MATERIA L COS T INCREASE S
Ou r processe s supply FR

P panel s t o th e transportation industry , a ver y cos tconsciou s market . W e woul d price ourselve s outo f busines s i f

w e employe d th e us e o f

costl y materials .

AD D O N CONTROL S Thi s pas tyea r our sale s wer e les s tha n $3,000,000 . Eve n give n sound profi tminde d busines s operation ; th e cos to f control s an

d operatio n woul d b e prohibitive .
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOHNNIE F. HOWARD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D22-1294

September 14, 2022

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit 

Court for Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Exhibit 31.1Cronos Global Income Fund XVIRule 13a-14 Certifications     I, Dennis J. Tietz, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cronos Global Income Fund XVI (the“Partnership”);     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact 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 the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Partnership as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;     4. The other certifying officer of Cronos Capital Corp. (“CCC”), the General Partner of thePartnership, and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Partnership and wehave:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Partnership, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;and          (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Partnership’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Partnership’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership’s internal control over financialreporting.     5. CCC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Partnership’s auditors and the Audit Committeeof Partnership’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thePartnership’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 havea significant role in the Partnership’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 16, 2007     /s/ DENNIS J. TIETZ   Dennis J. Tietz  President and Chief Executive Officer of CCC
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.


### Application of Aeromaan,S.A. de C.V. 

### for renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. Section 40109 Docket OST-2008-0085

APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF AN EXEMPTION AEROMAAN, S.A. de C.V.


### Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: Ramon Barrera 

### 2596RiverWay 

### SpringBranch, TX 78070-6088 Cell: 210-247-7102 

### E-mail: rbarrera@airworthinessconsultant.com RepresentativeforAeromaan, S.A. de C.V.

Date this application is signed April 1, 2012
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000578

27-NOV-2018

08:11 AM
### NUMBER 13

- 18
- 00140
- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

IN RE MCALLEN ANESTHESIA CONSULTANTS, P.A., et. al.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria Order P e r C u r i a m

Relators McAllen Anesthesia Consultants, P.A., Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, Ltd. d/b/a Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, and Edgar Armando Rodriguez, M.D. filed an emergency motion to stay the trial court order and discovery propounded pursuant to such order pending this Court’s action on relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. The real parties in interest, Jose David Sanchez, individually and as guardian of the person and

estate of Arleena Mancha Sanchez and as next friend o f XXXXX XXXX XXXXX, 1 a minor, have not yet filed a response in opposition to this emergency motion.

1 Relator utilizes this pseudonym to refer to the minor child, and we do likewise. See generally T EX

. R. A PP . P. 9.8.2

This Court, having examined and fully considered the emergency motion, is of the opinion that it should be granted. We GRANT the emergency motion and order that the trial court’s March 9, 2018 order and all discovery propounded pursuant to that order, to be stayed pending resolution of this original proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed th e 1 4 t h day of March , 2018.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Billy Joe Smith, Appellant

No. 06

- 12

- 00071

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 8th District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 0518108 ). Opinion delivered by Just ice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We n ote that the appellant, Billy Joe Smith, has adequately indicated his inability to pay
costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 23, 2013 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM: Amy Kopin

TO: The Docket

DATE: July 15, 2011

On May 3

rd, 2011 we held a conference call with Cummins to discuss concerns raised by

Cummins regarding heavy-duty onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing. Cummins 

raised concerns during the comment period for the heavy-duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed 

rulemaking that heavy-duty hybrid applications may not be able to meet the 2013 heavy-duty

OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking.

1,2

 Specifically, their 

comments include a request for a delay of the application of HD OBD requirements for hybrid 

applications until 2020. Attendees from this meeting are presented in the table below.

Attendee Affiliation 

Cleophas Jackson EPA – Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division 

Anthony Neam EPA – Assessment and Standards Division 

Amy Kopin EPA – Assessment and Standards Division 

Mark Stepper Cummins

Ben Zwissler Cummins

Morgan Andreae Cummins

 

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: 

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule 

Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway 

Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds,” published February 24, 2009. Available here: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-74-fr-8310.pdf

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned certifies that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

|Dated: March 8, 2005 |  | /s/ MARK J. LEVINMark J. Levin
Chairperson, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal executive officer) |  | 
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
NO. 07-12-0223-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL B

JANUARY 9, 2013

___________________________________

JOSE FIGUEROA MESTA, 

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

___________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF MOORE COUNTY; 

NO. 25055; HON. DELWIN MCGEE, PRESIDING

__________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

__________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J. and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Jose Figueroa Mesta (appellant) appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana.  Through two issues, appellant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress.  We affirm.

Appellant contends the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress based on the fact that the officer “exceeded the scope of the stop for speeding without developing reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity.”  We find the issues waived.

It is clear that to preserve error one must contemporaneously inform the trial court not only of the objectionable matter but also of the specific grounds underlying the objection.  Cisneros v. State, 692 S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Strauss v. State, 121 S.W.3d 486, 490 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003, pet. ref’d).  Similarly clear is that an objection can be waived.  For instance, if one moves to suppress evidence and the motion is denied, uttering the phrase “no objection” when the evidence is tendered at trial results in the loss of appellant's complaint viz the motion to suppress.  Moraguez v. State, 701 S.W.2d 902, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (en banc); *Strauss*, 692 S.W.3d at 490.

Here, when the State proffered the videotape into evidence at trial, appellant, via his counsel, stated that he had no objection.  Thereafter, the tape was played for the jury.  It depicted 1) appellant being searched by the officer and removing objects from his pockets, 2) the officer handcuffing appellant while asking him what he did with the baggie of “dope,” and 3) appellant stating that he threw it away.  At that point, both he and the officer go off camera looking for the baggie.  Then appellant is heard stating that he had placed the baggie down his pants and that it only contained a “nugget.”  Eventually, the baggie of marijuana was found sitting in the back floorboard of the officer’s car.  When the baggie containing the marijuana was offered into evidence at trial as State’s Exhibit 5 along with the chemist’s report as State’s Exhibit 6, appellant, through his attorney, again stated “no objection.”  Given these circumstances, any complaint about the legitimacy of the search was waived.  

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NOS. CAAP-18-0000740 AND CAAP-18-0000701

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ALLY BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

JOHN HOCHROTH,Defendant-Appellant,

and

SABINA MYOHYUNG HOCHROTH, aka SABINA MYOHYUNG HOCHROTH; ISLAND HOME MORTGAGE, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

JOHN DOES 1-20; JANE DOES 1-20; DOE 

CORPORATIONS 1-20; DOE ENTITIES 1-20; and 

DOE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS 1-20, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 16-1-0313)

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEALS

(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, and Chan and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the "Stipulation for Dismissal of

1) Appeal Filed September 27, 2018 in CAAP-18-0000740 and 2)

Appeal Filed September 7, 2018 in CAAP-18-0000701 Consolidated on

December 28, 2018" (Stipulation for Dismissal), filed on July 29,

2020, and the records and files herein, it appears that (1)

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant John Hochroth and

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellee Ally Bank

(collectively, the Parties) seek to dismiss the identified

appeals with prejudice pursuant to Hawai#i Rules of Appellate

Procedure Rule 42(b), (2) the Stipulation for Dismissal is signed

by counsel for the Parties to the appeals, and (3) the Parties

agree to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs. Therefore,

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000740

11-AUG-2020

08:49 AM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation for

Dismissal, filed on July 29, 2020, is approved and the appeals

are dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear their own

costs and attorneys' fees on appeal.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 11, 2020.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Presiding Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan

Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

2
Case: 2:17-cv-00728-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/18/17 Page: 1 of 3  PAGEID #: 18

Case: 2:17-cv-00728-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/18/17 Page: 2 of 3  PAGEID #: 19

Case: 2:17-cv-00728-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/18/17 Page: 3 of 3  PAGEID #: 20
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04331A025