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



Exhibit 31.2
 Rule 13a-14(a) / 15d-14(a)
Certification of Principal Financial Officer
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Premier Exhibitions, 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 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 annual 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; andc)
    
    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
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Stephen Couture
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JOHNNY L. HANEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, et al., Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-00136-WHR

Judge Walter H. Rice

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), all parties stipulate to the dismissal of all claims

filed this action with prejudice. With the understanding that no deposition costs will be taxed as

court costs, costs shall be paid by Defendant City of Springfield.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bradley D. Anderson

Bradley D. Anderson (0061325)

Kevin M. Darnell (0095952)

RION, RION & RION, L.P.A., INC.

130 W. Second St., Suite 2150

Dayton, OH 45402

Phone: (937) 223-9133

Fax: (937) 223-7540

banderson@rionlaw.com

kdarnell@rionlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Johnny L. Haney

/s/ Robert J. Byrne__________ Robert J. Byrne (0040299)

Assistant Attorney General

150 E. Gay St., 21st Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130

Robert.byrne@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

Attorney for State of Ohio,

Department of Medicaid

/s/ Jerome M. Strozdas

Jerome M. Strozdas (0003263)

City of Springfield Law Director

76 East High Street

Springfield, Ohio 45502

Phone: (937) 324-7352

Fax: (937) 328-3416

jstrozdas@springfieldohio.gov

/s/ W. Charles Curley

W. Charles Curley (0007447)

Weston Hurd LLP

10 W. Broad St., Suite 2400

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Phone: (614) 280-0200

Fax: (614) 280-0204

wcurley@westonhurd.com

Attorneys for Defendants City of

Springfield, Cassidy Cantrell, and Justin

Massie

Case: 3:18-cv-00136-WHR Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/11/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 102
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice was

filed electronically on the 11th day of February 2019, in accordance with the Court's electronic

filing guidelines. Service on all parties of record will be made through the Court's Electronic

Filing System in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). The parties may also access this

filing through the Court's Electronic Filing System.

/s/ W. Charles Curley

W. Charles Curley (0007447)

Case: 3:18-cv-00136-WHR Doc #: 23 Filed: 02/11/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 103
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7633

JOEL MCPHERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH SMITH, Warden, Edgefield Federal

Correctional Institution; UNITED STATES PAROLE

COMMISSION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District

Judge. (CA-02-3648-6-24AK)

Submitted: April 28, 2004 Decided: May 14, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joel McPherson, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joel McPherson seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Madley v.

U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1309-10 (D.C. Cir.), cert.

denied, 537 U.S. 1004 (2002). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that McPherson has not made the requisite

showing. 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 the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of The South Financial Group, Inc. (TSFG) certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the annual report on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2006 of TSFG (the Report):

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TSFG.



|                               
|-------------------------------
|                               
|/s/    MACK I. WHITTLE, Jr.    
|Mack I. Whittle, Jr.           
|Chief Executive Officer        
|The South Financial Group, Inc.

February 28, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to The South Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by The South Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Serving Makers of Formulated Products for Home and Commercial Use Since 1914

900 17th Street, NW Suite 300  Washington, DC 20006  T: 202.872.8110  F: 202.872.8114  ww.cspa.org

March 24, 2010

Steven Bradbury, PhD

Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Protection Agency

One Potomac Yard

2777 South Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202

RE: Request to Extend the Date for Compliance with the New Container Labeling 

Requirements by Amending 40 CFR 156.159

Dear Dr. Bradbury:

The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) supports the request of the 

American Chemistry Council Biocides Panel (Panel) asking the EPA Office of Pesticide 

Programs (OPP) to amend 40 CFR 156.159 to extend the date for compliance with the

new labeling requirements from August 16, 2010 to August 16, 2012. 

CSPA is the premier trade association representing the interests of approximately 240 

companies engaged in the manufacture, formulation, distribution and sale of 

approximately $80 billion annually in the U.S. of hundreds of familiar consumer products 

that help household, institutional and industrial customers create cleaner and healthier 

environments. Our products include disinfectants that kill germs in homes, hospitals and 

restaurants; candles, fragrances and air fresheners that eliminate odors; pest management 

products for home, garden and pets; cleaning products for use throughout the home; 

products used to protect and improve the performance and appearance of automobiles; 

and a host of other products used every day. Through its product stewardship program 

Product Care®, scientific and business-to-business endeavors, CSPA provides its 

members a platform to effectively address issues regarding the health, safety, 

sustainability and environmental impacts of their products. For more information, please 

visit www.cspa.org.

Many CSPA members also participate in the Panel. The membership survey conducted 

by the Panel clearly demonstrates the enormous task before OPP in approving revised 

labels. Likewise, the workload for state registration is also daunting. CSPA urges the 

Agency to grant an extension to the deadline to ensure sufficient time for necessary 

changes. Without such extension, it is anticipated that there will be substantial 

interruption in the availability of needed antimicrobial pesticides, resulting in a 

detrimental impact on public health. 
CSPA appreciates your consideration of this request. If you need additional information, 

please contact me at bklein@cspa.org or 202-833-7309. 

Sincerely,

Brigid D. Klein

Vice President & General Counsel

cc: Bill Diamond

 Kevin Keaney

 Nancy Fitz

 Joan Harrigan-Farrelly
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           15,070
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 30,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     137,792
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           72,614
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             72,315
<LOANS>                                         591,621
<ALLOWANCE>                                       9,231
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  875,180
<DEPOSITS>                                      794,201
<SHORT-TERM>                                          0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               8,437
<LONG-TERM>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          4,428
<OTHER-SE>                                       68,114
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  875,180
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  49,405
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                14,501
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  1,942
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 65,848
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               33,798
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               33,849
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            31,999
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     2,300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (199)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  21,374
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  11,674
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       11,674
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      9,321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      2.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      2.38
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     3.95
<LOANS-NON>                                       4,585
<LOANS-PAST>                                        214
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    571
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   2,171
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  8,033
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     1,558
<RECOVERIES>                                        456
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 9,231
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              9,231
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                               0
        


</TABLE>
#### People v Fletcher,

No. 91015;

Court of Appeals No. 121088.
#### William OWENS v. STATE of Arkansas

705 S.W.2d 892

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 31, 1986

*John F. Gibson, Jr.,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

The appellant, by his attorney, John F. Gibson, Jr., has filed a motion for a rule to require the clerk to file the record in this case after the expiration of the time allowed. The attorney admits that the delay in filing the record was his fault.

The motion for a rule on the clerk is granted. See our per curiam order of February 5, 1979, 265 Ark. 964.

*472A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Purtle, J., not participating.
From: Fisher, Brian To: "aaron_L_szabo@omb.eop.gov" Cc: Risley, David Subject: EO12866 and 13563: Interstate Transport Rule for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (RIN 2060-AS05) - Preamble redline Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 9:58:00 AM Attachments: EO12866_2008 O3 NAAQS CSAPR Update 2060 AS05 NPRM FRN_20151030 Preamble (redline).docx

Hi Aaron,

Please find attached a redline version of the preamble reflecting updates made in response to interagency review and comments.

Thanks,

Brian Fisher Policy Analyst Clean Air Markets Division (202) 343-9633
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default PD\ be entered against you for the relief demanded in the 

complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Southern District of Ohio

ANGELA SWARTZ and TEDDY SWARTZ,

2:18-cv-136

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND

COMPANY and THE CHEMOURS

COMPANY,

The Chemours Company

C/O Registered Agent, CT Corporation System

1209 Orange Street

Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Debra Nelson

The Nelson Law Firm LLC

4357 Ferguson Drive #280

Cincinnati, Ohio 45255

513-407-7982

513-429-5290

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 19
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

2:18-cv-136

0.00

Case: 2:18-cv-00136-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1-2 Filed: 02/20/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 20
#### Scott *v.*Miller.

Opinion delivered February 18, 1929.

*9
      *8am T. Poe, Tom Poe*and *McDonald Poe,*for appellant.

*Ira J. Mach,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.

Appellant insists that the chancellor erred in not holding that the fund could be impressed with a trust, and that the testimony warranted a decree in her favor.

It appears to be well settled law, in the absence of statutes providing otherwise, that a trust in personal property may be declared, created, or admitted verbally, and proved by parol testimony. It is said in K. C. L.:

> “In some jurisdictions an express trust cannot be created by parol, even as to personal property, but the great weight of authority is to the effect that the statute of frauds does not extend to trusts of personal property, and that such trusts may be created and proved by parol. In accordance with this rule it has been uniformly held that an oral promise by a beneficiary in a life insurance *10contract to pay the proceeds of such policy or a portion thereof to a third person is a valid and enforceable trust.” 26 R. C. L., p. 1194. See also 3 Pomeroy’s Equity (4th ed.) §§ 1008, 1009, pp. 2232-39; *Chew*v. *Brumagen,*13 Wall. 497, 20 U. S. (L. ed.) 663; *Hirsh*v. *Auer,*146 N. Y. 13, 40 N. E. 397, 398; *Catland*v. *Hoyt,*78 N. E. 55, 5 Atl. 775. The rule of evidence for the establishment of such a trust, however, is different' from the general preponderance rule insisted upon by appellant, clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence being required. 3 Pomeroy Equity, *supra.*

It is stated in R. C. L. that the same degree of proof should be required — clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence — to prove such an express trust as to establish a resulting trust. 26 R. C. L., pp. 1203, 1231, § 44, § 77; see also *Colegrave*v. *Colegrave,*89 Ark. 182, 116 S. W. 190, 131 Am. St. Rep. 82; *Bray*v. *Timms,*162 Ark. 247, 258 S. W. 338; *Scoggin*v. *Scoggin,*176 Ark. 1009, 4 S. W. (2d) 953.

The majority of the court is of opinion — in which the writer does not agree — that the proof of appellant is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the rule or establish the trust, and the case must be accordingly affirmed. It is so ordered.
#### People v Eighmy,

No. 90830;

Court of Appeals No. 121035.
P.1 

OAR Box 1818 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

24) ll-C-21 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:44 PM Sheet 24 of 79 
9 L?3. \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

\7^!957 ANN AR30R. MICHIGAN 43105 

P.2 

/9-&7-U 

TT'(L-3L\ 

* > J 

AUG I I h2f 

C-FICS OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

iicot-i Thomas P. Kozlowski, Chief 

Standards Development Divisio n ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Offic e of Motor carrie r Safet y (HCS-10) AGENCY 

400 7t h Street , SW /n o ^ o «ure 

Washington, D.C. 20590 .'.UG t 8 1987 

Dear Mr. Kozlowski: 

CENTBAl POCKET 

5-r^QH 

I would like to thank you for the time and effort invested 

by OMCS and Jim Britell, in particular, in reviewing our draft 

rule for onboard refueling vapor controls. Consultation with 

OMCS is important in this rulemaking to ensure that vehicle 

safety concerns, especially those for gasoline-powered 

heavy-duty vehicles, are identified and addressed and that 

overall motor vehicle safety is not degraded with the 

implementation of onboard controls. 

As part of our final deliberations on this proposal, EPA 

has committed to a careful review of all safety issues and a 

reproposal of the rule to assess any changed circumstances 

after we receive DOT'S comments on the NPRM. To assist in your 

review, enclosed you will find a copy of our NPRM and other 

significant support documents for this rulemaking. Some 

comments from manufacturers and copies of our responses to 

recent letters from congressman Dingell on safety aspects of 

onboard controls are also enclosed. 

We will continue to provide you copies of public comments 

on our proposal which are related to motor vehicle safety. 

Hearings on the onboard refueling control proposal are being 

planned for October in Washington, but the final time and date 

have not yet been set. We will notify you of the exact dates 

and location of the hearings as soon as they are finalized. 

Thank you for your continued cooperation in review of the 

onboard proposal. Please contact me at any time if you have 

any guestions or concerns regarding this rulemaking. 

Sirfcerely/vours, 

Charles; L/ Gray, jr. 

Di/ector 

Emission Control Technology Division 

Enclosures 

cc: Docket A-87-11 vs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Paul Joe Cramer,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:18-cv-62

Judge John A Vavra,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court for consideration of the

January 26, 2018, report and recommendation of the magistrate

judge. The magistrate judge conducted an initial screen of

plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). The

magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s complaint be

dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be

granted, as his claims against the defendant are barred by the

doctrine of judicial immunity.

The report and recommendation specifically advised plaintiff

that the failure to object to the report and recommendation within

fourteen days of the Report results in a “waiver of the right to de

novo review . . . by the District Judge and waiver of the right to

appeal the judgment of the District Court.” Doc. 2, p. 5. The

time period for filing objections to the report and recommendation

has expired, and no objections have been filed. 

The court agrees with the report and recommendation (Doc. 2)

and it is hereby adopted. This action is dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which

relief may be granted.
It is so ordered.

Date: February 12, 2018 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge

 

2