alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rosemary CORINTI a/k/a Rosemary Pearson, Appellant, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC, and Unknown Tenants/Owners, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4394

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 11, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### Exhibit 31.2

### Certification under Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of

### William N. Hagler, President, Director

I, William N. Hagler, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of
Intermountain Refining Co., Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of 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
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
4. The small business issuer'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
small business issuer and have:

> 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 small business issuer, is made
> known to us by others within the entity, particularly during the period in which
> this report is being prepared;
>     Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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;
> and
>     Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
> issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
> small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or
> is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's control
> over financial reporting; and

1. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the small
business issuer's board of directors:

> 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 small business issuer's ability to
> record, process, summarize and report financial information;
> and
>     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
> or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
> internal control over financial
> reporting.

Date: May 17,
2006/s/_William N.
Hagler________William N. Hagler, President,
Director
2Z,A_ y~ 

~ 

~ w 

i Q 

0 

~~yTqC PROZ'G~` 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

J U N 8 2010 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Donald C. Gadbury 

Manager, National TRU Program 

Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 

Dear Mr. Gadbury: 

On January 19, 2010, the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested that the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approve a proposed Tier 1 change containing eight 

containers of retrievably stored, remote-handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) debris waste from waste 

stream ID-MFC-S5400-RH for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The enclosed 

report (EPA Docket No. A-98-49;11-A4-126) provides more detailed background of our review. 

We approve the Tier 1 change request, and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) may dispose of this 

waste at the WIPP. 

The Central Characterization Project (CCP) characterized this waste using remotehandled waste characterization processes approved by EPA in February 2007. In our current 

evaluation, EPA identified no concerns. EPA determined that the procedures and processes used 

by INL-CCP staff for characterizing this waste were adequate. As a result of our evaluation, we 

revised the tiering table (Table 1) in the enclosed report. Revisions were made to reflect the 

tiering changes needed to sufficiently address nondestructive examination (NDE) T1 changes. 

If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Rajani Joglekar at (202) 

343-9462 or Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422. 

Sincerely, 

~~ ~ / 

Tom Peake, Director 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable 0 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Enclosure 

cc: Electronic Distribution 

Christine Gelles, DOE EM 

Alton Harris, DOE EM 

David Moody, CBFO 

Vernon Daub, CBFO 

Ava Holland, CBFO QA 

J R Stroble, CBFO 

Courtland Fesmire, CBFO 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA 

Jerry Wells, DOE ID 

D K Ploetz, WTS-CCP 

Mike Sensibaugh, WTS-CCP 

Mark Pearcy, WTS-CCP 

Allison Pangle, CTAC 

Wayne Ledford, CTAC 

Steve Zappe, NMED 

EPA Region 10
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie M. HARGROVE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6573

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Jamie M. Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Edward D. Gray, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamie M. Hargrove seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28. U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his motion for reconsideration. The -order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. *247§ 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the' denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hargrove 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Michael Shervin CROUCH, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D16-4661

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3, No. 333-58296) and related prospectuses of Insight Communications Company,
Inc. for the registration of 5,000,000 shares of its Class A Common Stock and
certain other securities and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No.
333-57808) pertaining to the Insight Communications Company, Inc. 1999 Stock
Option Plan of our report dated March 12, 2001, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Insight Communications Company, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2000, as amended, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A).





                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
April 26, 2001
UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C
. 

### Aco-lo o

^

Northwes t

Airlines , Inc. , Delt aAirlines , Inc
. AirTra n Airway s Inc. , Continenta l Airlines , Inc. , Southwes t

Airlines , Inc
.

Complainant s /

Appellee s
Indianapoli s Airpor t

Authority , Indianapoli s Internationa l Airport , BAA-Indianapoli s

Respondent s /

Appellant s C O m

O J C O Docke t No
. 16-0V^0

4

NOTIC E O FEXTENSIO N O FTIM E Thi s matte r

i s befor e th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) base do n th e above

reference dcomplaint , filedi n accordanc e withFA A Rule s o f

Practic e fo r

Federally

Assiste dAirpor t

Enforcemen t

Proceedings , 1 4 CF RPart 1 6 (Rule s o f

Practice)
. Pxirsuan

t t o th e Rule s o f

Practice , Sectio n 16.11(a) , th e dat e b y whic hth e Final Agenc y Decisio n wil l b e issue di n thi s matte r i s hereb y extende dt o Marc h3 , 2009
. A n extensio n o f

tim e i s necessar y an dappropriat e for afair an dcomplet e determinatio n in thi s case .

^^• ^ Catherin e Lan g Actin g Associat e A ' for Airport s 

# Jo ^ h i /Dat e ' trato rCERTIFICAT E O FSERVIC E 

### FE B 5 20C9 1 HEREB Y CERTIF Y tha t o n , I cause dt o b e place di n th e Unite dState s mai l (firs t

clas s mail , postag e paid ) atru e cop y o f th e Notic e o f

Extensio n o f Tim e addresse dto : Fo r Complainant s Rober t E
. Coh n Jonatha n L
. Abra m Patric k R
. Rizz i HOGAN & HARTSON , L.L.P
. 55 5 ThirteenthStreet , N W Washington , D C 2000 4 Bria n Mattingly , Regional Directo r

Airport Affair s Gar y Bunce , Assistan t Genera l Counse l NORTHWES T AIRLINES , INC
. 270 0 Lon e Oa

k Parkwa y Eagan,M N 5512 1 Josep hZan g Assistan t Genera l Counse l Rebecc aBays , General Attorne y DELT A AI RLINE S IN C 103 0 Delt aBoulevar d Atlanta , GA 3032 0 Richar dP
. Magurn o Senio r Vic e Presiden t

& Genera l Counse l AIRTRA N AIRWAYS , IN C 995 5 AirTran Boulevar d Orlanda , F

A 3282 7 Lorrain e B
. Hallowa y CROWEL L& MORINGLL P 100 1 Peimsylvani aAvenu e N W Washington , D C 2000 4 Counse l fo r

Continenta l Airlines , Inc
. Rober t W
. Kneisle y Associat e Genera l Counse l Lesli e Abbot t Attorne y SOUTHWES T AIRLINE S CO
. 190 1 LStreet , NW , Suit e 64 0 Washington , D C 2003 6

Thoma s Newto n Boilin g Managin g Attorney , Regulator y Affair s CONTINENTA LAIRLINES , IN C P.O
. Bo x 460 7 - HQSL G Houston , T

X 7721 0Fo r

Respondent s Pabl o O
. Nuesc h Jeffre y A
. Schwar z SPIEGE L& MCDIARMI D LL P 133 3 Ne w Hampshir e Ave. , NW Washington , D C 2003 6 Rober t A
. Dunca n Airport Directo r Indianapoli s Airport

Authorit y Indianapoli s Internationa l Airport 250 0 Sout

hHig hSchoo l Road , Suit e 10 0 Indianapolis , IN 46241-494 3
Cop y t o FA A Part

1 6 Airport

Proceeding s Docke t


### /§>-M ^

NflTit aB^gh t Offic e o f Airport Complianc e an dFiel dOperation s
Displ. (L) EPA Data 1.8 22.62167 SUMMARY OUTPUT 1.8 22.52333 1.8 22.89667 Regression Statistics 1.9 26.86333 Multiple R 0.299585 1.9 22.09833 R Square **0.089751** 1.9 27.32167 Adjusted R Square 0.07458 2.3 18.98 Standard Error 5.553363 2.3 25.36833 Observations 62 2.4 24.57667 2.4 20.45333 ANOVA 2.4 22.54667 df SS MS F Significance F 2.5 20.21333 Regression 1 182.4498 182.4498 5.91604 0.018004 2.5 26.84667 Residual 60 1850.391 30.83985 3 23.58 Total 61 2032.84 3 23.27833 3 23.85167 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0% 3 23.57667 Intercept 26.88534 2.386248 11.26678 1.93E-16 22.11213 31.65855 22.11213 31.65855 3 20.50833 X Variable 1 -1.58494 0.651626 -2.43229 0.018004 -2.88839 -0.2815 -2.88839 -0.2815 3 18.06 3 21.84167 3 12.835 3 17.73 3 13.66 3 28.44667 3 22.23167 3.2 13.66167 3.2 14.04333 3.2 18.65667 3.2 27.64 3.2 22.20167 3.5 19.91 3.5 30.40667 3.5 22.243.5 19.58167 3.5 21.24333 3.5 21.735 3.6 21.52167 3.6 23.16833 3.6 22.88667 3.7 21.17 3.7 20.21667 3.7 18.64333 3.7 13.4 3.7 16.915 3.7 16.85167 3.8 38.67833 3.8 38.21833 3.8 35.33667 4 17.31 4 22.4 4 20.01333 4.2 20.58333 5.3 18.36 5.3 16.88333 5.3 16.39167 5.3 16.43667 5.4 15.6 5.4 15.42 5.4 33.43167 6 13.32167 6 12.09833 6 13.63 year make model a/c technologies USCAR data: 1.4 19.4 GM A EVDC, reduced reheat

2.0 22.4 Ford A reduced reheat 2.0 20.0 Ford B reduced reheat 2.4 28.0 Chrysler C LPM blower, evaporator temp & system pressure control 2.4 18.3 GM B EVDC, reduced reheat 3.5 12.0 Ford C reduced reheat3.6 24.0 Chrysler B LPM blower, evaporator temp & system pressure control 3.6 16.0 GM C EVDC, reduced reheat 5.7 26.0 Chrysler A LPM blower, evaporator temp & system pressure controlUpper 95.0%15

20 25 30 35 40 45**T e** **s t** **R e** **s u** **l t** **s _** **A /** **C C** **O 2** **R a** **t e** **( g** **/ m** **i n** **)**



## FRM

0 5 10 15

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0**T e** **s t** **R e** **s u** **l t** **s _** **A /** **C C** **O 2** **R a** **t e** **( g** **/ m** **i n** **)**

**Engine Displacement (L)** EPA Data OEM Data Linear (New Threshold) 14.9 g/min Idle Test Threshold (for full credit value in 2012 rule ) 

## FRM Threshold
#### Sims *vs.*Whitlock and others.

Covenant is the proper remedy on a bond payable in Arkansas bank notes.

If a declaration is substantially sufficient, and no special cause of demurrer to it is assigned, judgment overruling the demurrer will not be reversed.

In covenant on a bond payable in Arkansas bank notes, a breach that payment was not made either in such notes or money, on or before the day when it fell due, and that defendant has always refused, and still refuses to pay, is good.

This was an action of covenant, determined in the Franklin Circuit Court, in September, 1842, before the Hon. Richakd C. S. Bkown, one of the circuit judges. John Sims sued Whitlock, Newman and Tomberlin, on a bond for $>45 in Arkansas bank notes, due *25th*December, 1841. The breach alleged that the defendant did not pay that sum either in such notes or money, by the 25th December, 1841, and have always refused, and still refuse to-pay the same. Service on Newman and Sims. Tomberlin not found. “ The defendant” demurred in short. Demurrer sustained, and judgment for “ said defendant.” The plaintiff brought error.

The case was argued here by *Linton,*for plaintiff in error, and *Blackburn,*contra.

*By the Court,*

Paschal, J.

It is to be observed, that no steps were taken as to the defendant not served; nor does the record show what ■ defendant demurred. This is, certainly, a very irregular proceeding.

No cause of demurrer has been pointed out. We have looked through the declaration, which seems to be substantially good. 2 *Ark. Rep.*115, *Davies vs. Gibson.*According to the principles settled in the case of *Dillard vs. Evans,*4 *Ark. Rep.*175, covenant was the proper remedy. The breach is well laid for the non-performance of the covenant, according to its terms. In our opinion, therefore, the demurrer was wrongfully sustained. Judgment reversed.
EXHIBIT 12

                              THE FINOVA GROUP INC
                 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
                          AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
                  (Dollars in Thousands, except per share data)

                                                              SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                  JUNE 30,
                                                           ---------------------
                                                                          1998
                                                             1999       RESTATED
                                                           --------     --------
Income before income taxes and preferred dividends         $172,429     $134,892
Add fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                          270,336      224,975
  One-third rentals                                           2,468        1,777
                                                           --------     --------
    Total fixed charges                                     272,804      226,752
                                                           --------     --------
Income as adjusted                                         $445,233     $361,644
                                                           --------     --------
Ratio of income to fixed charges                               1.63         1.59
                                                           ========     ========
Preferred stock dividends on a pre-tax basis               $  3,163     $  3,163
Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividends           275,967      229,915
                                                           --------     --------
Ratio of income to fixed charges and preferred stock
  dividends                                                    1.61         1.57
                                                           ========     ========
#### Catherine J. Staniewicz, Appellant, v Stop *&*Shop Super Food Market Company, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 750]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered November 13, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it neither created the alleged defective condition which caused the plaintiff to fall, nor had actual or constructive notice of it *(see Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp.,*84 NY2d 967 [1994]; *Richardson v Campanelli,*297 AD2d 794 [2002]; *Kershner v Pathmark Stores,*280 AD2d 583 [2001]; *Patrick v Cho’s Fruit & Vegetables,*248 *488AD2d 692 [1998]; *Katsoris v Waldbaum, Inc.,*241 AD2d 511 [1997]; *Kraemer v K-Mart Corp.,*226 AD2d 590 [1996]). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see *Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp., supra; Richardson v Campanelli, supra; Kershner v Pathmark Stores, supra; Patrick v Cho’s Fruit & Vegetables, supra; Katsoris v Waldbaum, Inc., supra; Kraemer v K-Mart Corp., supra).*The statement of the alleged eyewitness submitted by the plaintiff was not in admissible form and, in any event, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 3212 [b]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 92 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 92

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
               repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 12, 2022

 Mr. Moore of Alabama submitted the following joint resolution; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
               repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein),
    Section 1. The following article is proposed as an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents 
and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the 
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years 
after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Effective 2 years after the ratification of this article of 
amendment, the sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States is repealed, and the Congress shall have no power to 
lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, except 
in time of war declared by the Congress.''.
    Sec. 2. Not later than 180 days after the ratification of the 
article of amendment in section 1, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
submit a report to Congress containing recommendations for any 
legislation that may be necessary to implement such article.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UROLOGIX FDS
FOR QUARTER ENDED 3/31/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         573,701
<SECURITIES>                                46,162,742
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,843,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,869,588
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               583,008
<PP&E>                                       3,895,288
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,429,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              59,516,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,927,430
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       111,205
<OTHER-SE>                                  56,455,190
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                59,516,586
<SALES>                                      2,508,515
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,508,515
<CGS>                                        2,601,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,601,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,151,821
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             4,244,859
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,501,603)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,501,603)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,501,603)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)
        

</TABLE>