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

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Mike L. Wilhelms, certify that:

 

(1)              I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Crescent Capital BDC, 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)) 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 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; and

 

c.                    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 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 control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b.                   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:   March 25, 2016 | By:    | /s/ Mike   L. Wilhelms    |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                        |   | Mike L.   Wilhelms        |
|                        |   | Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
Opinion filed August 8, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-13-00227-CR

__________

IN RE JOHN WILLIAM SPURLOCK 

Original Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator, John William Spurlock, has filed a pro se petition for writ of 

mandamus complaining of Hon. Kenneth Keeling, Judge of the 278th District 

Court of Leon County, with respect to Relator’s criminal proceedings.

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b)(1) (West 2004) provides that each court 

of appeals for a court of appeals district may issue all writs of mandamus, 

agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs, “against a judge of a 

district or county court in the court of appeals district.” Leon County is not in the 

Eleventh Court of Appeals District. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(l) (West 

Supp. 2012). Instead, Leon County is in the Tenth Court of Appeals District. See
2

id. § 22.201(k). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus 

against either a judge or district court of Leon County.

1

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

August 8, 2013

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.

 1

We heard Relator’s direct appeal from his underlying conviction by virtue of a transfer order 

issued by the Texas Supreme Court transferring his appeal from the Tenth Court of Appeals to this court. 

The transfer order does not extend to subsequent proceedings filed by Relator.
|   | EXHIBIT      32.1 |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | 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 the      Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         | By:        /s/ A.G. Foust                                                             |   |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|         | Name:        A.G. Foust                                                               |   |
|         | Title:          Chief Executive and                                         |   |
|    |                   Financial Officer |   |
|         | Date:          February 12, 2009                                            |   |
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 2, 2011 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JESUS CONTRERAS-BOCANEGRA, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General, Respondent,

------------------------------ AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL; AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THENATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD; POSTDEPORTATION HUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT; ROCKY MOUNTAIN IMMIGRANT ADVOCACY NETWORK, Amici Curiae. No. 10-9500

ORDER

Before BRISCOE , Chief Judge, KELLY , LUCERO, MURPHY , HARTZ , O’BRIEN, TYMKOVICH , GORSUCH , HOLMES and MATHESON , Circuit Judges.-2- This matter is before the court on the petitioner’s request for en banc rehearing. We also have a response in opposition from the respondent, as well as two amicus curiae briefs. Upon consideration, the request for en banc rehearing is granted. See 10 thCir. R. 35.6. This matter will be heard en banc on the court’s November 2011 oral argument calendar. That calendar is set for the week of November 14, 2011. The parties will be advised of the exact date and time for argument when the calendar is finalized. In addition, the parties are directed to file simultaneous supplemental briefs on or before August 30, 2011 addressing the following questions: 1. Could the Attorney General's regulatory decision to limit the "jurisdiction" of the BIA through the post-departure bar (8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d)) be characterized as a “categorical exercise of discretion”? 2. There appears to be some tension between 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(A)’s bar on admission of previously removed aliens and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6) & (7)’s allowance for reopening or reconsideration in at least some circumstances. Could the post-departure bar be a reasonable regulatory response by the Attorney General to this apparent ambiguity? 3. If a removed alien succeeds in a motion to reopen or reconsider, what relief can the BIA grant? How does the availability and nature of any possible relief from the BIA inform the reasonableness of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d)’s post-departure bar? 4. May a removed alien seek reconsideration or reopening directly from the Attorney General? If so, does the ability to seek reconsideration or reopening from additional sources satisfy 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6) & (7)? The briefs shall be limited to 20 pages in length in a 13 point font. The parties are-3- directed to file those briefs on or before the due date via the court’s ECF system, then to forward to the office of the clerk, within 2 business days, an additional 14 hard copies. In light of the November calendar setting, requests for extension of time are discouraged.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER Clerk of Court
#### Amir SHABAZZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jimmy CRUZEN, Sgt; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16037

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

Amir Shabazz, Pro Se

Chad Allen Stegeman, Esquire, Attorney, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, Erin Ganahl, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*884MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Amir Shabazz appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to congregational prayer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Shabazz failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he properly exhausted his administrative remedies, or whether there was “something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” *Albino v. Baca,*747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc); *see also Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (requiring proper exhaustion, which means “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)). Shabazz contends that he exhausted under a “continuing violation” theory, but even if this court were to adopt such a theory, it would not apply in this case.

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
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                         434,642
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,313,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,126,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,052,870
<PP&E>                                       2,641,238
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,039,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,861,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,693,290
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           43,541
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,861,695
<SALES>                                      5,630,930
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,678,720
<CGS>                                        4,071,871
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,102,851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,606,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,428)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,597
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (41,025)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (41,025)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  OROVER SELLSRS **ATIORNLI**

**OpIlmAL~ .**  Hon. Pat Been8 

### CountyAttorney Andrew8 County Andrew8, 

### Texas Dear sirr Oplnlon NO. 04272 

### Ret Whether orndldate 

### ma hare hia name plaoed 0nA b-7 ballot when he wifl hot have 

### bsen an 

### aotaalbo&a iWe re**We** are in **reosipt of**  **your** 

### iog the opinionor thisdepartment@ quote rmm your 

### letteras rollowe:

. aeoure rrom 

### you an

a personsname at the prenent 

### in Fil Par0 and

ntereetedin thematterhareappllcat'ione

with the Chairman is about up.* 

### Artiole2927,Vernon's Annotated 

### Civl.1 3tatutes. provides: "X0 person shall be eligible to any State, county, >mofnot or munioipal ofiioe in this State unless he shall be ell&ble to hold office under the Constitution of t-his gtate, nnd unless he shall have resided in tills State for the period of twelve months and SIX months in the oounty,

### ._
September 15, 2015

Mr. Christopher R

. Dodson

Principal, Director of Field Operations

Timmons Group

1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300

Richmond, VA 23225

Dear Mr. Dodson :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption fro m

§ § 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a) and (b), 91.9(b)(2), 91.109(a) , 91.119,

91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.319(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and

91.417(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains wh y we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your June 3, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Timmons Group filed in

D ocket No. FAA

- 20 15

- 2529 , but we are unable to process y our request any further. Your

petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public inter est; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/pet ition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you mus t submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,839
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,956
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,347)
<INVENTORY>                                     58,872
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               166,500
<PP&E>                                          93,940
<DEPRECIATION>                                (38,052)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 551,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,727
<BONDS>                                        419,340
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           591
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   551,721
<SALES>                                         86,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,971
<CGS>                                           44,854
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,296
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    457
<INCOME-TAX>                                       250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                207
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       207
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of JB Oxford Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher L. Jarratt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.


/s/  Christopher L. Jarratt
Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2002
412612016 l.Erge piece of SaskPo.Yer equipment makes its way fran Saskatoon to Estevan- SaskPo.Yer 

## 'l SaskPoiiVer Povvering the t=uture ao


### • Ask a Question 

# News Releases**wha~** are you looking for? j 

# IGo 

# I 

# Large piece of SaskPower equipment makes its way from Saskatoon to Estevan
September 14, 2015 From Sept. 14 to 18, a large piece ofSaskPower equipment will be moved 

### by truck from Biggar to Boundary Dam Power Station near Estevan, using secondaryhighways as much as possible. The move 

### will also require several power lines to be temporarily lifted. Where possible, power will be reroutedto avoid outages. Localized power outages maybe necessary along the route. Notably, planned outages in the Estevan area on Sept. 17 will be necessary for thefinal leg ofthejourney. SaskPower apologizes for anyinconvenience. The 90,000 

### kg cylinder is the size ofa six-storey building: 20 metres-long, and nearly 12 metres in diameter, lying on its side. It is one ofthe major components in SaskPower's carbon capture and storage (CCS) process. Itwill improve the reliability 

### ofthe storage for the amine solution being used to capture carbon dioxide molecules. This contributes to a growing CCS knowledge-base that SaskPower is developing and commercializing internationally so that CCS increasingly contributes to thefight against global climate change. To date, the CCS process has captured more than 400,000 tonnes ofcarbon dioxide, or the equivalent oftaking more than 100,000 vehicles offSaskatchewan roads. SaskPower continues to fine-tune and test every part ofthe process, to be able to capture up to a million tonnes of

### C02 annually when fully operational. This world-first 

### will help SaskPower provide reliable, affordable coal power to approximately 1oo,ooo Saskatchewan homes, but in a way that is 10 times cleanerthan other coal units and even four times cleaner than a comparable natural gas unit. Travelling almost continuously, this high-load move 

### will follow thepath identified in the map below.

htlp://www.saskpower.com/about-us/media-inform aliCilllrvNis-releasesll..-ge-piece-c:l-saskpcM'er-eqt..i pment-makes-its-way-fran-saskatocn-to-estewn/ 1/2Biggar

Outlook Nokom i s 

# \ Rosetown

Regina

Stoughton Forget

Estevan

For

### more iDCormadou aboutplumedoutages,

### visitwww "''k&lo'wersoomlm•taau- OCS is 

### alao 

### cme of'IIUIDYiDnovative 

### careeropportlmitieslltSukPower. 

### To leammme, 

### visit

## www yei!qJgwer.com[M....,....,
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Trustees
Security Capital Pacific Trust:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements No.
33-86444 (Form S-3), No. 33-78402 (Form S-3), No. 33-71040 (Form S-3), No. 
33-44631 (Form S-3) and No. 33-25317 (Form S-8) of Security Capital Pacific 
Trust of our report dated January 31, 1996, except as to note 12, which is as 
of February 23, 1996, relating to the balance sheets of Security Capital Pacific
Trust as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the related statements of earnings,
shareholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedule for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1995, which report appears in the
December 31, 1995 annual report on Form 10-K of Security Capital Pacific Trust.


                                               KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 20, 1996