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

CERTIFICATION

I, Brian Dickman, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Seritage Growth Properties; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                     |  |  |  |                     
|---------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------
|/s/ Brian Dickman                                    |  |  |  | Date: March 23, 2016
|Brian Dickman                                        |  |  |  |                     
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luis Carlos Galaviz BURCIAGA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51233 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 20, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr.,. Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Luis Carlos Galaviz Burciaga, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Luis Carlos Galaviz Burciaga has moved *468for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Galaviz Burciaga has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *468published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5,4.
No. 11-1264.

#### Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. *v.*United States.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8229 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8229

 To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
 issue a rule authorizing the Office of Hearings and Appeals to decide 
 appeals relating to the status of HUBZone business concerns, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 11, 2020

Mrs. Radewagen (for herself and Ms. Houlahan) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to 
 issue a rule authorizing the Office of Hearings and Appeals to decide 
 appeals relating to the status of HUBZone business concerns, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Parity for HUBZone Appeals Act of 
2020''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS TO DECIDE 
              APPEALS RELATING TO QUALIFIED HUBZONE SMALL BUSINESS 
              CONCERNS.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall issue a 
rule authorizing the Office of Hearings and Appeals of the 
Administration to decide all appeals from formal protest determinations 
in connection with the status of a concern as qualified HUBZone small 
business concern (as such term is defined in section 31(b) of the Small 
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a(b))).
                                 <all>
```
#### C.W. v. T.J.T.

1957 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/19/2017

218 AD 2013 (Greene)

Affirmed
#### COM. v. RIVERA-GONZALEZ, E.

2020 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/18/2017

Reargument Denied 11/29/2017

CP-36-CR-0005899-2014

(Lancaster)

Affirmed
No. 11-1341.

#### Bosch *v.*Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 4.13


 


English Language Summary


 


Authorization Agreement for Radiofrequency Blocks Personal Mobile Service– Termo de Outorga de Autorização de Uso de Blocos de Radiofrequências Associadas ao Serviço Móvel Pessoal No. 518/2012/SPV-ANATEL


 



	
Parties:

	
Telefônica Brasil S.A., as authorizee, and Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (ANATEL), as grantor.


	 	 
	
Date:

	
October 16, 2012.


	 	 
	
Expiration:

	
October 18, 2027.


	 	 
	
Purpose:

	
Authorization to use blocks of radiofrequency associated with Personal Mobile Service and Multimedia Communications, without exclusivity, primarily in sub-bands 451MHz to 458 MHz and 461 MHz to 468 MHz. This grant was pursuant to the award of Lot 3 of under the bid No. 004/2012/PVCP/SPV-ANATEL.


	 	 
	
Area:

	
States of Alagoas, Ceará, Minas Gerais, Paraíba, Pernambuco, Piauí, Rio Grande do Norte and Sergipe.


	 	 
	
Amount:

	
The grant amount for this authorization is established determined by the offer price for Lot 3 of the bid No. 004/2012/PVCP/SPV-ANATEL.


	 	 
	
Renewal:

	
This license may be renewed only once, for 15 years. The amount due for the renewal will be payable every two years during the extension period for an amount corresponding to 2% (two percent) of the revenues of the Personal Mobile Service provider for the year preceding payment, net of taxes and social contributions. On the 15th year the provider must pay 1% of its revenue for the previous year.


	 	 
	
Penalty:

	
Breach of the Authorization Agreement and applicable regulations to Multimedia Communication Services may result in administrative proceedings by ANATEL, the application of warning sanctions, fines, temporary suspension or revocation of licenses.
Order entered April 8, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00275-CV

LYNN WOODHAM, Appellant

V.

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-06310-B

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s March 29, 2013 “Motion for Rule 60 Relief from 

Judgment.” The Court DENIES the motion.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
No. 11-9823.

#### Wiley *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.
1 

### United States Environmental Protection Agency

Docket Index for [EPA - R09 - OAR- 2009 - 0269 ] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan s; State of California; Legal Authority Docket Index Category/ Item Number I. Reserved II. Federal Register Not ice s
 37 FR 10842 (May

31, 1972) II - A  44 FR 38912 (July

3, 1979) II - B  45 FR 53136 (August 11, 1980) II - C  69 FR 67062 (November 1 6 , 2004) II - D  73 FR 9260 (February 20, 2008) II - E III. Other Relevant Documents
 ARB Letter to Air Pollution Control Offi cers/Districts, Regarding Implementation of Permit Provisions of Senate Bill 700, dated September 3, 2008 III - A

 Earthjustice L etter to EPA dated January 7, 2008 III - B  California Attorney

General Letter to EPA dated November 3, 2003 III - C  Senate Bill 700 III - D  Transmittal Memo, Recommendation and Evaluation Report Concerning Chapter 3 (L egal Authority ) of Revision to California SIP from Paul De Falco, EPA, dated June 25, 1979 III - E

 ARB Transmittal L etter for Chapter 3 (Legal Authority ) of Revision to C alifornia SIP, dated March 16, 1979 III - F
 Chapter 3 (L egal Authority ), Revision to California SIP, December 1978 III - G  Chapter 2 (Statewide Perspective), Revision to California SIP, October 1978 III - H  Chapter 1 (Introduction), SIP - 78 Working Document, April 1978 III - I  Foreword to the State of California’s 1979 SIP Amendments in Response to the CAA Amendments of 1977, July 1979 III - J
 Excerpt from 40 CFR part 51, subpart B (“Plan content and requirements”) (1977) III - K2

 Governor’s Letter to EPA transmitt ing 1972 California SIP, dated February 21, 1972 III - L
 California SIP, dated January 30, 1972, cover page and table of contents III - M  Chapter 7 (L egal Considerations), 1972 California SIP III -N  Appendix II (State Statutes and Other L egal Documents Perti nent to Air Pollution Control in California), 1972 California SIP III - O
 Excerpt from 40 CFR part 51, subpart B (“Plan content and requirements”) (1972) III - P
 Excerpts from Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 III - Q I V. EPA Rulemaking Documents
 Federal Re gister Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Pre - publication Version IV - A  75 FR 4742 (January

29, 2010) IV - B  Federal Register Notice of Final Rulemaking, Pre - publication Version IV - C V. Comment Letters on Proposed Action
 San Joaquin Valley

APCD, Comment Letter, February 24, 2010 V - A  Paul Cort, Earthjustice, Comment L etter, March 1, 2010 V - B  Brent Newell, CRP&E, Comment L etter, March 1, 2010 V - C  Greenberg - Glusker, Comment L etter, March 1, 2010 V - D VI. Supplemental Materials for Final Rule
 62 FR 2796 8 (May

22, 1997) V I - A  72 FR 64158 (November 15, 2007) V I - B
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1988
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1988
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       00
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   562
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              562
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               00
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
2022 EAVS Data Brief: West Virginia EAVS Jurisdictions:

55 

 Voter Registration 

Active Reg. Voters as of Nov. 8, 20221 

1,055,475 

Reg. Forms Received2* 

478,216 

Total Confirmation Notices Sent3* 

169,472 

Voters Removed from Reg. Rolls4* 

197,429 

Source of Registration Applications5 

Motor Vehicle Dept. 27.9% 

In Person 24.5% 

Other 24.4% 

Mail, Email, Fax 12.5% 

Online 10.6% 

 Voting and Turnout 

Voters Participating By Mode6 

7 Turnout 

35.0% In-Person 

Election Day

350,187 

70.9% 

Mail 

12,301 

2.5% 

In-Person 

Early 

128,799 

26.1% 

Other 

2,623 

0.5% 

Total Voting Locations8: 1,395 

Total Poll Workers9: 7,871 

Election Technology 

Percentage of Jurisdictions Using...10 

76.4% 

Ballot 

Marking 

Devices 

74.5% 

Scanners 

32.7% 

Electronic

Poll 

Books 

29.1% 

DREs with

VVPAT 

0.0% 

 DREs w/o 

VVPAT 

0.0% 

Hand 

Counting 

 Mail Ballots 

• 12,598 mail ballots transmitted11 

• 83.7% of transmitted mail ballots returned by voters12 

• 102.6% of returned mail ballots counted13 

• 1.0% of returned mail ballots rejected14 

• Did not conduct all-mail election15 

• Did not allow drop boxes16 

• Allowed ballot curing17 

 Election Audits18 

-- Access audit 

-- Ballot design audit 

Ballot reconciliation -- audit 

Compliance/ -- procedural audit 

-- Eligibility audit 

-- Legal audit 

Logic and accuracy ✔ testing 

Post-election ✔ tabulation audit 

-- Other 

Notes 

EAVS data and reports may be downloaded at www.eac.gov 

/research-and-data/datasets-codebooks-and-surveys. 

Responses of “Does not apply,” “Data not available,” and “Valid 

skip” are shown as zeroes or dashes. Percentages may not sum 

to 100% because of missing data or rounding. 

* Close of registration for 2020 

general election to close of 

registration for 2022 general 

election. 

1 A1b of EAVS. 

2 A3a of EAVS. 

3 A8a of EAVS. 

4 A9a of EAVS. 

5 Mail, Email, Fax is A4a/A3a. 

In Person is A4b/A3a. Online is 

A4c/A3a. Motor Vehicle Dept. is 

A4d/A3a. Other is the sum of 

A4e–A4l/A3a. May not sum to 

100% because of missing data. 

6 In-Person Election Day is F1b. 

Mail is F1d+F1g. In-Person Early 

is F1f. Other is F1c+F1e+F1h. 

7 F1a of EAVS divided by citizen 

voting age population (CVAP). 

8 D2a of EAVS. 

9 D7a of EAVS. 

10 F3a–f, F5a–F9a of EAVS; 

number of jurisdictions that 

responded “Yes” divided by

number of jurisdictions in 

state/territory. 

11 C1a of EAVS. 

12 C1b/C1a of EAVS. 

13 C8a/C1b of EAVS. 

14 C9a/C1b of EAVS. 

15 Q17 and Q17a of Policy 

Survey. 

16 Q19 of Policy Survey. 

17 Q20 of Policy Survey. 

18 Q36 of Policy Survey. See 

survey questionnaire for full 

definitions of each type of 

audit.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 138 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 138

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 Appointing the day for the convening of the first session of the One 
                        Hundred Sixth Congress.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 138

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Appointing the day for the convening of the first session of the One 
                        Hundred Sixth Congress.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the first regular session 
of the One Hundred Sixth Congress shall begin at noon on Wednesday, 
January 6, 1999.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 1998.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
July 2, 2015

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 2nd day of July, 2015.

10-14-00202-CR	DAVID BLAINE McKINLEY v. THE STATE OF TEXAS - ON APPEAL FROM THE 40TH DISTRICT COURT OF ELLIS COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 37611CR – AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Davis:

	“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in the judgment, the judgment is modified to delete the $2,720.00 assessment of attorney’s fees and to reflect court costs of $413.00.  It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that, as reformed, the judgment be in all things affirmed, and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
                                                                    ------------

                             POSITRON CORPORATION
                  STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS
                       for the years ended December 31,
                       (in thousands, except share data)


<TABLE> 
                                                                      1995                1996
                                                                  -----------         -----------
<S>                                                                <C>                <C> 
Net loss                                                            ($5,028)            ($6,375)

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

                                                                    ($5,028)            ($6,375)
                                                                  ===========         ===========

Weighted Average Shares used in computing Net Loss per Share      3,637,320           3,811,026

                                                                  ===========         ===========

Net Loss Per Share                                                   ($1.38)             ($1.67)
                                                                  ===========         ===========
</TABLE>
No. 11-10224.

#### Bush *v.*City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Official Journal C 207/24 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 207 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4824 August 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 207

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4824 August 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 207/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 207/2 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3921 — Advent/Herlitz) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 2 |
| 2005/C 207/3 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 3 |
| 2005/C 207/4 | Infringement No 2003/4497 — multiple complaint | 6 |
| 2005/C 207/5 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3927 — Industri Kapital/Bonna Sabla) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 7 |
| 2005/C 207/6 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3829 — Maersk/PONL) (1) | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 207/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 207/2

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3921 — Advent/Herlitz) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

2

2005/C 207/3

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

3

2005/C 207/4

Infringement No 2003/4497 — multiple complaint

6

2005/C 207/5

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3927 — Industri Kapital/Bonna Sabla) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

7

2005/C 207/6

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3829 — Maersk/PONL) (1)

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Order entered August 2 3 , 2016

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 01306

- CR

JULIAN TERENCE MARTI N JR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13

- 59221

- X



### O RDER

T h e Court DENIES appellant’s motion asking this court to mandate the trial court to

forward appellant’s appeal brief.”

We ORDER the Clerk to send a copy of this or der to Julian Terence Martin, Jr, TDCJ

No. 02026170, Telford Unit, 3899 State Hwy 98, New Boston, Texas, 75570.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Douglas A. PACKETT, also known as Peckerwood Defendant-Appellant United States of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Douglas A. Packett Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-3089, No. 17-3382

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 13, 2018

Filed: February 27, 2018

Donald James Kleine, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Douglas A. Packett, Pro Se

Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Douglas Packett directly appeals the concurrent within-Guidelines-range sentences the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release in the underlying cases. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief asserting that the sentences are substantively unreasonable.

Reviewing Packett’s revocation sentences for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (standard of review), we conclude that the sentences are not unreasonable, as both the prison terms and the supervised-release term are within the statutory limits, and the prison terms are within the applicable advisory Guidelines range, see United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of substantive reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines range). We affirm the judgments, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.