alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**I, Phillip J. Smith, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: February 7, 2007         /s/ Phillip J. Smith     Phillip J. Smith    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2011-16355]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0423; FRL-8879-2]

 Mevinphos; Data Call-in Order for Pesticide Tolerances

Correction

    In rule document 2011-16355 appearing on pages 38037-38040 in the 
issue of June 29, 2011, make the following correction:
    On page 38039, in the third column, in the first full paragraph, in 
the fifth and sixth lines, ``June 29, 2011'' should read ``September 
27, 2011''.
[FR Doc. C1-2011-16355 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
#### Peter K. STERN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-1139

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 27, 2017

Decided: July 14, 2017

Peter K, Stern, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Peter Kay Stern appeals the district court’s orders denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Stern v. United States,*No. 1:16-cv-00329-MR, 2016 WL 6986704 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 2016 & Jan. 12, 2017). We deny as moot Stern’s motions for final judgment on the pleadings and to expedite the decision. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASIDNGTON DC 

FRIENDS OF THE EAST HAMPTON AIRPORT, INC., 

ANALAR CORPORATION, 

ASSOCIATED AIRCRAFT GROUP, INC., 

HELICOPTER ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

HELIFLITE SHARES LLC, 

LIBERTY HELICOPTERS, INC., and 

SHORELINE AVIATION, INC. 

Complainants, 

v. 

EAST HAMPTON AIRPORT, a division of the 

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

Docket No.: 16-15-02 

On May 6, 2015, counsel for Complainant, Friends of the East Hampton Airport, Inc., eta! 

filed an unopposed motion seeking an extension of time until June 8, 2015, for which to file 

their responsive Reply to the Respondent's Answer and its opposition to Respondent's 

Motion to Dismiss. Counsel further advised that the Respondent does not oppose this 

request for an extension of time. 

Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airport -related 

complaints. [See, Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement 

Proceedings, Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (October 16, 1996).] The rule provides that an 

extension of time may be granted where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete 

consideration of matters before the agency. See 14 CFR § 16.ll(a). 

An extension of time is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, Complainants 

Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline to Respond is granted. Complainants may file their 

Rebuttal on or before June 8, 2015. 

Randall S. Fiertz Date 

Director, Office of Airport 

Compliance and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May :2/ , 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first 

class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the foregoing Order addressed to: 

Counsel for Respondent 

Elizabeth Vail 

Town Attorney 

Town of East Hampton 

159 Pantigo Road 

East Hampton, NY 1193 7 

EV ail@EHamptonNY. Gov 

W. Eric Pilsk 

Catherine van Heuven 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

epilsk@kaplankirsch.com 

cvanheuven@kaplankirsch.com 

Counsel for Complainant 

Leonard D. Kirsch 

McBreen & Kopko 

Attorneys for Complainants 

500 North Broadway 

Jericho, New York 11753 

lkirsch@mklawnyc.com 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

t;foq~JL-;;;;JMS&b e 

nne Torgerson 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thomas E. Mara, as Chief Executive Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(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 the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: October 30, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Thomas E. Mara
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | Thomas E. Mara         
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Sidney Blank, Appellant, v Harry Katz, P.C., Respondent.

[770 NYS2d 742]

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated February 10, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*513Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, he failed to meet his burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Iannarone v Gramer,*256 AD2d 443 [1998]). To prevail on a claim for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the attorney failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed by a member of the legal community, (2) that the attorney’s negligence was a proximate cause of the loss sustained, (3) that the plaintiff incurred damages as a direct result of the attorney’s actions, and (4) that the plaintiff would have been successful in the underlying action had the attorney exercised due care *(see Iannarone v Gramer, supra; Volpe v Canfield,*237 AD2d 282 [1997]). The plaintiffs submissions on his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability did not establish that but for the defendant law firm’s failure to timely commence an underlying action in the appropriate forum, the plaintiff would have succeeded in that underlying action *(see Marinelli Assoc. v Morrison,*303 AD2d 386 [2003]). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, James K. Brata, certify that:

 

1.        I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K /A of TGC Industries, 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;

 
| Date:   April 15, 2011 | By:    | /s/   James K. Brata                           |
|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
|                        |   | James   K. Brata                               |
|                        |   | Chief   Financial Officer                      |
|                        |   | (Principal   Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

1

----
OSWER/OSRTI

Washington, DC 20460

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL) 

***Proposed Site*** September 2014 

35TH AVENUE Birmingham, Alabama

Jefferson County

 Site Location:

The 35th Avenue site consists of residential soil contamination in the neighborhoods of Collegeville, Fairmont and 

Harriman Park in northern Birmingham, Alabama. The contaminated neighborhoods are surrounded by industrial 

facilities associated with coke manufacturing, and iron and steel industries. 

 Site History:

Residential soils have been contaminated from air deposition or “borrow” fill soil potentially from the operation of

several facilities in the area. One facility is the Walter Coke, Inc. operation which manufactures foundry and furnace

coke as well as coke by-products in 122 coke ovens. Additional potential sources include: ABC Coke; U.S. Pipe, a 

lead foundry, KMAC Recycling & Industrial Services and Alagasco Corporation.

 Site Contamination/Contaminants:

The primary contaminants of concern are benzo(a)pyrene, arsenic and lead in residential soils.

 Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment: 

Hundreds of residential lots are contaminated with benzo(a)pyrene, arsenic, or lead exceeding health risk exposure 

standards. The total site area encompasses more than 2,000 properties and more than 1,000 total acres. 

 Response Activities (to date):

The EPA has sampled more than 1,000 properties and is currently conducting soil removal actions at 50 of the highest 

contaminated properties. 

 Need for NPL Listing:

The site area is very large and there are numerous potential industries which have contributed to the contamination. 

Hundreds of properties remain contaminated at levels which exceed health-based benchmark levels. A single, 

comprehensive assessment and remediation of contaminated residential soils is needed. The EPA received a letter of 

support for placing this site on the NPL from the state.

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may 

change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent 

FR notices.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to 

these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on 

the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

The undersigned, Brion Umidi, the Chief Financial Officer of ReGen Biologics,
Inc. (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2003 (the
Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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 results of
operations of the Company.

|                         |  |                               
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------
|Date: November 14 , 2003 |  | /s/ Brion Umidi               
|                         |  |                               
|                         |  | Name: Brion Umidi             
|                         |  | Title: Chief Financial Officer
7705 Technology Drive Melbourne Florida 32904 

 Phone 321-951-9464 Fax 321-728-9071 

May 7th, 2015 

Supplement to submittal under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0198 

Air and Radiation Docket 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 

 Mail Code 6102T 

Washington DC 20460 

RE: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy Program (79 Fed. Reg. 46,126 April 3, 2014 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

Structural Composites, Inc and its sister company Compsys, Inc (SC), of Melbourne Florida has 

commented (20 Oct 14) on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule titled “ 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Change of Listing Status for Certain Substitutes Under the Significant 

New Alternatives Program” published in the Federal Register on August 6, 2014. 

We want to add new consideration based on our meeting with Ms. Drusilla Hufford and the EPA Snap 

team. Please add that as our Preform product is demonstrated to have a net savings in GHG and as such

we should not be subject to SNAP and we should be allowed continued use of this GHG saving material. 

Please let me know if you need any supporting materials as a result of our discussions or submittals. In 

Particular, the supporting data for the thermal and weight savings estimates from the use of Prisma 

Technology. 

Use of PRISMA in the boating sector has already resulted in GHG savings though increased fuel 

efficiency. Our work in the semitrailer and truck body market validates the GHG savings submitted in 

our first letter. These will start to have a positive impact on GHG as the technology deploys into this 

market over the next 24 months. We trust that the EPA will look at the GHG over the life cycle of our

end products and will agree that in the case of Prisma the small non-recurring GHG during production is 

dwarfed by the GHG savings over the operational life of the product. 

Also please let us know if you are in need of any supporting materials as a result of our discussions or 

submittals. Unless we hear otherwise we will consider that you accept the material as presented. 

As we have no alternative for our preforming technology and as we can clearly demonstrate that our 

technology has a GHG Return on Investment in life cycle GHG, we hereby request a full exemption for 

use of 134a as a blowing agent in foam used in our composite preforms. 

Thank you, 

Scott M. Lewit 

President 

321-252-4566 

slewit@aol.com
#### Robin TOSTE; Gerald Toste, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EL DORADO COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-17025

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Robin Tosté, Pro Se

Gerald Tosté, Pro Se

Andrew T. Caulfield, Esquire, Attorney, Caulfield Law Firm, El Dorado Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2). Accordingly, the Tostes’ request for oral argument, set forth in their opening brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Robin Toste and Gerald Toste appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment *575dismissing their 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with their state court real property proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal- under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *Noel v. Hall,*341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Tostes’ action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine because their claims constituted a forbidden “de facto appeal” of a prior state court judgment. *See id.*at 1163-65 (discussing proper application of *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine); *see also Henrichs v. Valley View Dev.,*474 F.3d 609, 616 (9th Cir. 2007) *(Rooker-Feldman*doctrine barred plaintiffs claim because alleged legal injuries arose from the “state court’s purportedly erroneous judgment” and the relief sought “would require the district court to determine that the state court’s decision was wrong and thus void”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the Tostes’ action without leave to amend because the Tostes could not correct the jurisdictional defects in their complaint. *See Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied if amendment would be futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Tostes’ motion to reconsider because the Tostes failed to establish any basis for reconsideration. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000883327
<NAME> SIGNATURE BRANDS USA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                           4,118
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,501
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     37,851
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,674
<PP&E>                                          16,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 275,078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,494
<BONDS>                                        164,060
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            92
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   275,078
<SALES>                                         90,365
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,365
<CGS>                                           63,388
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,579
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (76)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,062
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,837
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,225
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,225
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
Order entered March 5, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 19 - 01207 - CV LORENA GOMEZ DE GONZ ALEZ BARRERA A/K/A L ORENA TASSINARI GONZALEZ B ARRERA, Appellant V. EDU ARDO LIVAS - CANTU, JU AN ANTONIO QUIROGA - G ARCIA, JUAN GONZALEZ MORENO, GRU PO FINANCIERO BANORT E SAB DE CV, DOING BUSINESS AS IN TER NATIONAL BANK IN THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee s On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause N o. PR - 15 - 02808 - 1

ORDER Before the Court is appellant’s March 2 , 2020 motion for a twenty

- one - day extension of time to file her brief. We GRANT the motion. Appellant’s brief shall be filed by March 2 3 , 2020

. We caution appellant that further requests for extension of time will be disfavored./s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE