alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1—Section 302 CertificationI, Ellen Z. Lamale, certify that:I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-Kcontaining distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of period included in the year coveredby this annual report, of Principal Life Income Fundings Trust 2005-114;1. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports,taken as a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 2. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to beprovided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement,for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports; 3. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor and the trusteeunder the pooling and servicing, or similar agreement, and based upon my knowledge and the annualcompliance review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositorand trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and 4. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the compliance by the trusteeand the depositor with the minimum servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by anindependent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single AttestationProgram for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedures, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similaragreements, that is included in these reports.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information providedto me by the following unaffiliated parties: Ernst and Young and Citibank, N.A.Date: March 24, 2006   By:/s/ Ellen Z. LamaleName:Ellen Z. LamaleTitle:Senior Vice President and Chief Actuary
Opinion filed August 8 , 201 3



### 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 re spect to R elator’s criminal proceedings.

T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.221( b)(1) (West 2004 ) provides that e ach 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 c ourt in the cou rt of appeals district.” Leon County is not in the

Eleventh Court of Appeals District

. T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.201 ( l ) (West

Supp. 2012 ). Instead, Leon C ounty is in the T e n th Court of Appeals District. See2 id. § 22.201( k ). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to i ssue a writ of mandamus

against either a j udge 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J.

1 We heard R elator’s direct appeal from his underlying conviction by virtue of a transfer order issued by the Texas Supreme Court transfe r ring his appeal from the Tenth Court of Appeals to this court.
The transfer order does not extend to subsequent proceedings filed by R elator.
#### Ellmaker v. State

108,728

07/24/2015

Denied.

Unpubhshed
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50362 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GERALD JOE HENSON, also known as Jerry Henson, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CR-154-6-JN

-------------------- October 25, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gerald Joe Henson, federal inmate # 13118-064, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2) motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Henson contends that the district court erred by construing his motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Henson wishes to challenge his indictment pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because the indictment did not allege a $61 million tax loss, obstruction of justice, and the printing of counterfeit securities.No. 01-50362 -2- Our review of the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is de novo

. See Hager v. NationsBank N.A. , 167 F.3d 245, 247 (5th Cir. 1999). Regardless of the label Henson affixed to his motion, it challenges the constitutionality of his sentence as imposed by the district court and was properly construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Rich , 141 F.3d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1998). Because the motion filed purportedly under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2) was properly construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, Henson was required to obtain this court’s authorization to file it. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255. Henson did not obtain authorization, and the district court properly dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The district court’s dismissal is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 12.2
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Copa Holdings, S.A.;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 company as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) 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 internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
     5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors
and the audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
    /s/ Victor VialVictor VialChief Financial Officer
No. 12-5811.

#### Zajrael *v.*Harmon, Warden, et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### James T. Venable, Plaintiff, *v.*Clinton Brockett, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Rensselaer County,

April 7, 1972.

*Rosenblum & Leventhal (Sanford Rosenblum*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Maynard, O’Connor & Smith (Michael E. Catalinotto*of counsel), for defendant.'

*727Harold J. Hughes, J.

This is a motion by plaintiff pursuant to CPLB. 3101 (subd. [a]), and CPLB 3124, to compeLdefendant to submit a sample of his handwriting as requested at a deposition.

The action arose out of an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was furnished by the driver of the other vehicle with a slip of paper upon which the other motorist wrote his purported name, address and telephone number. Plaintiff also recorded the license number of the other vehicle.

A subsequent investigation revealed that the name given by the other motorist was that of a Schenectady resident who did not own the vehicle in question and who did not match the plaintiff’s physical description of the other driver. Further investigation disclosed the defendant to be the owner of the vehicle bearing the license plate number plaintiff recorded at the time of the accident.

Plaintiff’s attorney, in the affirmation in support of the motion, states that apart from plaintiff’s own identifying testimony, the sole corroborating evidence indicating defendant’s liability is the slip of paper bearing the handwriting of the motorist who struck plaintiff’s vehicle.

Defendant first contends that the scope of disclosure allowed by CPLB 3101 does not include handwriting samples. At least one court, however, has held that giving an exemplar of handwriting is allowable under CPLB 3101 *(Rosenblatt*v. *Ramis,*55 Misc 2d 528).

Defendant further contends that the handwriting sample is not necessary since it is sought by plaintiff for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of plaintiff that defendant was the operator of the vehicle. “ Necessary ” within the meaning of CPLB 3101 (subd. [a]), means “ needful ” or “ relevant ” even though a prima facie case could be made without it (see' 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3101.08).

Plaintiff’s motion is granted, without costs.
**Exhibit 15**
July 22, 2002
Accountants’ Acknowledgment
     We acknowledge the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-78340, No. 333-41379 andNo. 333-45524) of OptimumCare Corporation of our report dated July22, 2002 with respect to the condensed consolidated financialstatements of OptimumCare Corporation which appears on page 3 ofthis Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2002.
/s/ Lesley, Thomas, Schwarz & Postma, Inc.A Professional Accountancy CorporationNewport Beach, California.
16
#### State v. Phillips

107,628

09/04/13

Denied.

Unpublished
EXHIBIT 31.2
                    PRINCIPLE EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
               UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
I, Daniel H. Leever, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MacDermid,
Incorporated;
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 quarterly 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 officers 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 registrant and we 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 officers 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 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:  November 7, 2003      /s/ Daniel H. Leever
       ----------------      --------------------
                           Name: Daniel H. Leever
                   Title: Chairman, President and
                          Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 16134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8655]


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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED


Procurement List; Proposed Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.
ACTION: Proposed addition to Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee has received a proposal to add to the 
Procurement List a commodity to be furnished by nonprofit agencies 
employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, Crystal Square 3, Suite 403, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, Virginia 22202-3461.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Milkman (703) 603-7740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested 
persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the 
proposed action.
    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, all entities of 
the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required 
to procure the commodity listed below from nonprofit agencies employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
    I certify that the following action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors 
considered for this certification were:
    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, 
recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other 
than the small organizations that will furnish the commodity to the 
Government.
    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish 
the commodity to the Government.
    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would 
accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-
48c) in connection with the commodity proposed for addition to the 
Procurement List.
    Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should 
identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they 
are providing additional information.
    The following commodity has been proposed for addition to 
Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

Corrugated Plastic MM Trays
    P.S. 3925
    (U.S. Postal Service requirements for East Hartford, CT; 
Somerville, NJ; Soysset, NY and Baltimore, MD)
    NPA: South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Beverly L. Milkman,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-8655 Filed 4-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
S94A1463.

S94A1464.

#### DELAMARIA v. THE STATE. THOMPSON v. THE STATE.

(452 SE2d 745)

Sears, Justice.

Alejandra Delamaria and Robert Donald Thompson were tried together and were each convicted of two counts of murder in connection with the shooting deaths of Beth Allison Tanner and Brian Jason Paisley. Each appellant received two life sentences to be served consecutively.1 They appeal and we affirm.

*62Decided January 23, 1995

Reconsiderations denied February 21 and February 23, 1995.

*Megan C. De Vorsey,*for appellant (case no. S94A1463).

*J. Russell Mayer,*for appellant (case no. S94A1464).

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, William F. Riley, Jr., Carole E. Wall, Carl P. Greenberg, Barry I. Mortge, Assistant District Attorneys, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marla-Deen Brooks, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

1. Having reviewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found the appellants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes for which they were convicted. *Jackson v.*Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. Both appellants contend that they received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that each appellant failed to establish the elements of the test for ineffective assistance of counsel articulated in *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U. S. 668 (104 SC 2052, 80 LE2d 674) (1984). In addition, Delamaria contends that the trial court erred in failing to act sua sponte to sever the trial and to prohibit certain cross-examination, and that she is entitled to have the case remanded and her motion for new trial reopened since her present counsel did not represent her at trial or on motion for new trial. Thompson further contends that the trial court erred in allowing the state to introduce the murder weapon into evidence. We find no error requiring reversal or remand in any of these enumerations.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The crimes were committed July 4, 1992. Both appellants were indicted September 18, 1992, and were tried together March 16-26, 1993. The trial court’s sentences were filed March 29, 1993. Thompson filed motions for new trial on April 2, 1993, and June 30, 1993, and amended his motions for new trial on September 29, 1993. Delamaria filed motions for new trial on April 20, April 22, and April 29, 1993, and amended those motions on October 1, 1993, December 30, 1993, January 6, 1994, and January 14, 1994. The trial court denied Thompson’s and Delamaria’s motions on March 23, 1994. Thompson’s notice of appeal was filed April 22, 1994. His appeal was docketed June 23, 1994, and was submitted without oral argument August 15, 1994. Delamaria’s notice of appeal was filed April 19, 1994. The appeal *62was docketed June 23, 1994, and was orally argued October 11, 1994.
#### State v. Jones

106,750

08/19/13

Denied. .

Unpublished
|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                
|View History:                                                 
|                                                              
|Texas Natural Gas Industrial Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                              
|                                                              
|Texas Natural Gas Industrial Consumption  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0    | Year-1    | Year-2    | Year-3    | Year-4    | Year-5    | Year-6    | Year-7    | Year-8    | Year-9   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ---------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |           |           |           |           |           |           |           | 2,049,290 | 1,998,932 | 1,864,830
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2,110,475 | 2,029,809 | 1,978,184 | 1,866,138 | 1,814,173 | 1,341,461 | 1,288,887 | 1,296,976 | 1,326,451 | 1,198,472
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,418,780 | 1,464,681 | 1,526,812 | 1,544,083 | 1,585,742 | 1,606,000 | 1,649,759 | 1,678,504 | 1,838,402 | 1,799,319
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,865,744 | 1,956,073 | 1,962,995 | 1,982,440 |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
# C_2019020EN.01000101.xml

| 16.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 20/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 20/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8905 — AXA Group/Roland)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 20/01)

On 26 July 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8905. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8905. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
No. 12-6017.

#### Greene *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

VINCENT C. MCGEE, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

JOHN E. WETZEL, SECRETARY OF 

CORRECTIONS; STACY P. MILLER, 

ESQ.; CENTRE COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, 

 Respondents 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 147 MM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2015, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
# Estimate

&"Arial,Bold"&8Energy Information Administration2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey:  Final Housing Characteristics Tables	

# RSE

&"Arial,Bold"&8Energy Information Administration2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey:  FInal Housing Characteristics Tables