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

ASCENT SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Gary Gatchell, Chief Financial Officer of Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2008;

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(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 registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
March 12, 2009

/s/ GARY GATCHELL Gary Gatchell Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Utah Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Coalbed Wells  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Utah Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Coalbed Wells  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 76,705 | 78,367 | 74,399 | 72,492
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 66,223 | 60,392 | 54,722 | 49,918 | 46,680 | 43,730 | 40,973 | 37,408 | 34,710 | 32,335
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 30,444 | 29,040 | 27,676 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
# L_2012158EN.01002501.xml

| 19.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 158/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 158/25

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 334 of 17 December 2010
  )

On page 41, Article 46(4), second subparagraph:

for:

‘... using the results of the measurements set out in point 2 of Part 6 of Annex VI in order to determine the emission levels in the final waste water discharge ...’,

read:

‘... using the results of the measurements set out in point 3 of Part 6 of Annex VI in order to determine the emission levels in the final waste water discharge ...’;

on page 50, Article 82(5)(b):

for:

| ‘(b) | 7 January 2013, for combustion plants referred to in Article 30(3).’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(b)

7 January 2013, for combustion plants referred to in Article 30(3).’,

read:

| ‘(b) | 6 January 2013, for combustion plants referred to in Article 30(3).’; |
| --- | --- |

‘(b)

6 January 2013, for combustion plants referred to in Article 30(3).’;

on page 69, Annex VI, Part 4, point 1:

for:

‘

  Formula

  ’,

read:

‘

  Formula

  ’.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.14

                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                          DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                             MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

                              COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT


PROJECT NUMBER          DTMA91-95-00069

MODIFICATION:           0006

TITLE:                  "Integrated Shipboard Information Technology
                         Platform (ISIT)"

FUNDING DATA:           N/A

RECIPIENT NAME
   AND ADDRESS:         Marine Management Systems, Inc.
                        470 West Avenue
                        Stamford, CT  06902

AGENCY NAME AND
   ADDRESS              DOT/Maritime Administration
                        Office of Administration, mAE-384
                        400 Seventh Street, SW, Rm 7310
                        Washington, D.C.  20590

MODIFICATION            Article 10, Modifications
AUTHORITY:

DESCRIPTION:

1.    In accordance with Article 11, Agreement Administration, technical matters
      under this agreement shall be referenced to the following representative:

      Recipient:  Mr. Raymond Kaufman, P.E.
                  Marine Management Systems, Inc.
                  c/o Radix Systems, Inc.
                  201 Perry Parkway
                  Gaithersburg, MD. 20877

The Project Manager Organization is being changed from Radix Systems, Inc. to
Marine Management Systems, Inc.


                                       33
<PAGE>   2
2.    Article 1 - Parties, on page 4, line 10, delete General Electric marine
      Systems and replace with PDI division of Bird Johnson Company.

3.    Article 9 - Project Management, on page 9, under 9(1.), line 14, delete
      General Electric marine Systems and replace with PDI Division of Bird
      Johnson Company.

4.    All other terms and conditions of the Cooperative Agreement remain
      unchanged.

MARIGIME ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


/s/  John E, Carr

Agreements / Contracting Officer

Date:  10/21/97
#### PR Financing Ltd. Partnership v. Elias 55

03/15/2016

387 WAL (2015)

55

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 98
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Cameron, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Lithuania (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Price of Cameron, LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Lithuania (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                 

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct  | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---- | --- | ---
|2020                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      | W   | W  
|2022                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | W   | W   | W   | W   | W   |     | W    | W   |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     | W   |     |     |     |     |     | 5.69 |     |    
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### William Misa, Appellant, v Anthony Filancia, Jr, et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 404]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered June 26, 2002, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside a jury verdict on the issue of liability as against the weight of the evidence, for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, and for a hearing to apportion liability.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was to set aside the jury verdict on the issue of liability as against the weight of the evidence and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new trial on the issue of liability.

*811The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant, Anthony Filancia, Jr., on Woodhaven Boulevard. Filancia made an abrupt stop to avoid colliding with a bus in the lane in front of him, and his vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by the defendant Dennis M. Harvey. The jury found that both defendants were negligent but that their negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident. The plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability. We conclude that the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence.

“A jury’s finding that a party was at fault but that that fault was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” *(Schaefer v Guddemi,*182 AD2d 808, 809 [1992] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Rubin v*Pecoraro, 141 AD2d 525 [1988]).

Here, the Supreme Court charged the jury that a finding of negligent conduct with respect to each defendant could be based, inter alia, on the failure to keep a proper lookout or to maintain a safe distance between the vehicles *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 [a]). Under the circumstances, the issues of negligence and proximate cause were so inextricably interwoven that it was logically impossible for the jury to find that both defendants were negligent without also finding that the negligence of at least one of them was a proximate cause of the accident *(see Salazar v City of New York,*302 AD2d 580 [2003]; *Klein v Vencak,*298 AD2d 434 [2002]; *Morgan-Caban v Pacini,*295 AD2d 931 [2002]). Accordingly, there must be a new trial on the issue of liability.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27716-27717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13375]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense


Meeting of the DOD Advisory Group on Electron Devices

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Advisory Group on Electron Devices.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Working Group B (Microelectronics) of the DoD Advisory Group 
on Electron Devices (AGED) announces a closed session meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held at 0900, Thursday, June 11, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Palisades Institute for Research 
Services, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy Doyle, AGED Secretariat, 1745 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal 
Square Four, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The mission of the Advisory Group is to 
provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Technology, to the Director Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), 
and through the DDR&E, to the Director Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing 
an effective research and development program in the field of electron 
devices.
    The Working Group B meeting will be limited to review of research 
and development programs which the military proposes to initiate with 
industry, universities or in their laboratories. The microelectronics 
area includes such programs on semiconductor materials, integrated 
circuits, charge coupled devices and memories. The review will include 
classified program details throughout.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended 
(5 U.S.C. App. Sec. 10(d) (1994)) it has been determined that this 
Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5

[[Page 27717]]

U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly, this meeting will 
be closed to the public.

    Dated: May 14, 1998.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 98-13375 Filed 5-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7764

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TEKOA T. GLOVER, a/k/a Toby,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (6:18-cr-00588-TMC-1)

Submitted: April 26, 2022 Decided: April 29, 2022

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tekoa T. Glover, Appellant Pro Se. Sloan Price Ellis, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tekoa T. Glover seeks to appeal the district court’s order striking his pro se filings 

on the ground that Glover is represented by counsel. This court may exercise jurisdiction 

only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

545-46 (1949). The order Glover seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 12-7686.

#### Wiggins *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32-11
**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**
I, Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MichiganConsolidated Gas Company (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of myknowledge and belief:
(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.   Dated: November 4, 2004 /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR.   Anthony F. Earley, Jr. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided toMichigan Consolidated Gas Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request**.**
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Panama (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Panama (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 6,786  | 10,221
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 12,764 | 8,436  | 13,759 | 19,565 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
ORIGINAL 

3Jn tbe Wniteb ~tates ~ourt of jf eberal ~laims 

* * * * * * * * 

BILLY DRIVER, 

v. 

No. 15-607C 

(Filed September 28, 2015) 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

* * * * * * * * * * 

* 

* 

* 

Plaintiff, * 

* 

* 

* 

THE UNITED STATES, * 

* 

Defendant. * 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ORDER 

FILED 

SEP 2 8. 2015 

U.S. COURT OF 

FEDERAL CLAIMS 

Billy Driver is a prose plaintiff, having filed a complaint against the United 

States on June 16, 2015. Plaintiff seeks compensation for his alleged unjust 

conviction and continuing imprisonment in the California state prison system. 

Mister Driver also seeks social security benefits and requests damages for torts 

committed by prison guards, such as withholding meals from him. 

Defendant moved to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction on August 12, 

2015. In support of its motion, the government argues that this court does not have 

jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims for unjust conviction. Mot. at 4. In order for this 

court to have jurisdiction, plaintiff must have a valid certificate of innocence. 

Grayson v. United States, 141 Ct. Cl. 866, 869 (1958). Id. Defendant notes that 

plaintiff has not submitted a valid certificate of innocence. Id. The government 

also argues that this court lacks jurisdiction over claims for social security benefits, 

Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and tort claims 

against the government, Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 623 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

Id. at 6-7. 

Pursuant to the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), 

plaintiff is required to respond to a motion seeking dismissal under RCFC 12(b) 

within 28 days of service. RCFC 7.2(b)(l). Plaintiffs response to the government's 

motion to dismiss was due on or by September 14, 2015. Plaintiff has not filed a 
response. The failure to timely respond to a motion to dismiss a case, by itself, 

warrants dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and to comply with these 

rules. See RCFC 4l(b). 

Taking into consideration plaintiffs pro se status, however, the Court has 

examined the complaint. Nothing in this pleading alleges a cause of action over 

which this court has jurisdiction. The documents that plaintiff has submitted with 

his complaint do not remotely resemble the certificate of innocence required by 28 

U.S.C. § 2513. Nor, for that matter, has plaintiff even alleged that he was convicted 

of a crime against the United States, which is necessary to bring a claim under 28 

U.S.C. § 1495. To the contrary, plaintiff remains incarcerated in a state 

penitentiary, apparently for violations of state criminal laws. The government is 

correct that our court lacks jurisdiction over claims for social security benefits and 

torts actions against the government. See Marcus, 909 F.2d at 1471; Brown, 105 

F.3d at 623; 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(l) (limiting jurisdiction to "cases not sounding in 

tort"). Thus, defendant's motion to dismiss this case, for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction, is GRANTED. The Clerk shall close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

~~;i£ Ju ge 

- 2 -