alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Charles E. Mueller, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Archstone-Smith Operating Trust (the“registrant”).  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 theyears covered by annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the years presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-f(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board oftrustees (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls.       By: /s/ Charles E. Mueller, Jr.         Charles E. Mueller, Jr.
#### Robert D. MIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lindsay CUNNINGHAM; Willow Saloum, Dr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15199

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

Robert D. Mix, Pro Se

James C. Phillips, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Robert D. Mix, a civilly committed resident at Coalinga State Hospital, appeals pro se from a jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a failure-to-protect claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mix’s motion to reopen discovery, his requests for various non-party hospital records, and his requests for police and Fresno County superior court records, because Mix failed to show denial of his requests resulted in substantial prejudice. *See Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,*342 F.3d 1080, 1084, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and noting that a district court’s “decision to deny discovery will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that the denial of discovery results in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court'did not abuse its discretion by denying Mix’s motion for a continuance to obtain counsel because the pertinent factors weighed in favor of denial of the continuance. *See United States v. 2.61 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Mariposa Cty.,*791 F.2d 666, 670-71 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review and factors to be considered in reviewing the denial of a requested continuance).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Walker and Mendoza as witnesses because they were not disclosed in accordance with the pretrial order. *See id.; Galdamez v. Potter,*415 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating factors to be considered in evaluating a motion to amend a pretrial order). As to Walker and Mendoza’s written declarations, Mix did not preserve this issue for appeal because he withdrew his request to admit the declarations. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (we will not consider matters not properly raised before the district court)

We reject as without merit Mix’s contention that the district court erred by not granting him an additional opportunity to amend his complaint after the district court’s deadline for amending the complaint.

*621We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Mix’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# C_2023035EN.01005802.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/58

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2022 — General Wire Spring v EUIPO (GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS)

(Case T-151/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark GENERAL PIPE CLEANERS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 35/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: General Wire Spring Co. (McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: E. Carrillo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi, acting as Agent)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 January 2022 (Case R 1452/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders General Wire Spring Co. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders General Wire Spring Co. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.

---
# C_2022424EN.01001702.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de Prud’hommes d’Agen (France) lodged on 21 April 2022 — FH v Keolis Agen SARL

(Case C-274/22)

(2022/C 424/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil de Prud’hommes d’Agen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FH

Defendant: Keolis Agen SARL

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) be interpreted as being directly applicable in relations between a private transport operator, with a single public service delegation, and its employees, in the light, in particular, of the liberalisation of the rail passenger transport sector? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) be interpreted as being directly applicable in relations between a private transport operator, with a single public service delegation, and its employees, in the light, in particular, of the liberalisation of the rail passenger transport sector?

| 2. | What is a reasonable carry-over period in respect of the acquired entitlement to four weeks’ paid annual leave within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, in so far as the time during which annual leave may be accrued is one year? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is a reasonable carry-over period in respect of the acquired entitlement to four weeks’ paid annual leave within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, in so far as the time during which annual leave may be accrued is one year?

| 3. | Is the application of an unlimited carry-over period in the absence of a provision of national law, a regulation or convention governing that period contrary to Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the application of an unlimited carry-over period in the absence of a provision of national law, a regulation or convention governing that period contrary to Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5763]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. Once the notices have been accepted for 
processing, they will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later 
than March 24, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand, Vice 
President) 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-2171:
    1. Larry W. Jochim, Bigfork, Montana; to acquire an additional 9.6 
percent, for a total of 11.7 percent, of the voting shares of Mountain 
Bank System, Inc., Whitefish, Montana, and thereby indirectly acquire 
Valley Bank of Belgrade, Belgrade, Montana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 4, 1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-5763 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7864

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSE LUIS ACEVEDO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-427; CA-97-2080) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 10, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Luis Acevedo, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jose Luis Acevedo, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in which he sought reconsideration of the court’s order denying as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subst antial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Acevedo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Acevedo’s motion for abeyance as moot and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I,Lawrence R. Litowitz, Interim Chief Financial Officer ofMayor’s Jewelers, Inc., certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mayor’s Jewelers,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal 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 overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: January 7, 2005 /s/ Lawrence R. LitowitzLawrence R. LitowitzInterimChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Annual Report of
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke Energy Indiana) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Rogers, Chief
Executive Officer of Duke Energy Indiana, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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 Duke Energy Indiana.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 19, 2008



/s/    JAMES E.
ROGERSJames E. Rogers Chief Executive
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,282,045
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    201,811
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         326,829
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 458,310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,268,995
<COMMON>                                       636,409
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      328,963
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            210,532
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,175,904
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           89,039
<PREFERRED>                                    125,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           920,439
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              44,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 123,049
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   43,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 748,564
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,268,995
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,179,330
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            84,545
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     880,197
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     964,742
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        214,588
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               7,676
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 222,264
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        86,544
<NET-INCOME>                                   135,720
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     15,528
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  120,192
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       117,099
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       77,224
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         251,710
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.89
        

</TABLE>
Q413 Exhibit 10.47






Exhibit 10.47




STRATUS PROPERTIES INC.
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2014




Cash Compensation


Each non-employee director receives an annual fee consisting of, as applicable, (1) $25,000 for serving on the board, (2) $1,000 for serving on each committee (including chairmen of the committee), (3) $7,000 for serving as chairman of the audit committee, (4) $5,000 for serving as chairman of the compensation committee, (5) $5,000 for serving as chairman of the nominating and corporate governance committee and (6) $12,500 for serving as lead independent director.  In addition, each director and committee member receives $1,500 for attendance at each board and committee meeting, as well as reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending such meetings, or $1,000 for participation in each board and committee meeting by telephone. 


Equity-Based Compensation


Each non-employee director receives equity-based compensation under Stratus’ stock incentive plans, which were approved by Stratus’ stockholders. On September 1st of each year, each non-employee director receives a grant of 2,000 restricted stock units (RSUs). The RSUs vest ratably over the first four anniversaries of the grant date. Each RSU entitles the director to receive one share of Straus common stock upon vesting.
# C_2022148EN.01004001.xml

| 4.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/40

---

Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Homy Casa v EUIPO — Albatros International (Chairs)

(Case T-89/22)

(2022/C 148/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Homy Casa Ltd (Guangzhou, China) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Albatros International GmbH (Nerdlen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design (Chairs) — Community design No 2745 554-0002

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2021 in Case R 837/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

| — | Misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 thereof. |
| --- | --- |

—

Misapplication and misinterpretation of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 thereof.

---