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

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Marvin E. Kramer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Tilden Associates, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

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 function):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

April 15, 2005
                                         /s/ Marvin E. Kramer
                                         -------------------------------
                                         Marvin E. Kramer
                                         Vice-President of Law and Finance
*February 14, 2018*

2018-Ohio-557.]

2016-1302.

#### Springfield Spartans, L.L.C. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Boat'd of Tax Appeals, No. 2016-1946. On appellee’s motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.

Kennedy and O’Neill, JJ., not participating.
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|Nevada Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Transported  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|Nevada Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Transported  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 64     | 207   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 228    | 73     | 112    | 109    | 129    | 128    | 132    |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 146    | 158    | 169    | 174    | 175    | 178    | 186    | 197    | 197    | 199   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 353    | 324    | 318    |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### In the Matter of Axel Heydasch, a Suspended Attorney.

[52 NYS3d 890]

Motion by Axel Heydasch for reinstatement to the Bar as an attorney and counselor-at-law. Mr. Heydasch was admitted to the Bar in the State of New York at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on October 6, 1982. By opinion and order of this Court dated April 24, 2012, this Court suspended Mr. Heydasch from the practice of law for a period of three years, effective May 24, 2012, based on the discipline taken against him by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida *(see Matter of Heydasch,*96 AD3d 84 [2012]).

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in relation thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that, effective immediately, Axel Heydasch is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to restore the name of Axel Heydasch to the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Rivera, Dillon and Hall, JJ., concur.
1

Opinion issued November 1 5 , 2016

In The



## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 16
- 00 819
- CR

——————————— IN RE GEORGE AGUILAR , Relat or

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, George Aguilar , confined and proceeding pro se, has filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the trial court “ to conduct a hearing ,” asserting that he has been “unable to obtain effective assistance [ of2

counsel ] with preparing for a trial by jury” and “unsuccessful with obtaining discovery. ” 1
We d eny the petition.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes , Higley , and Lloyd

. Do no t publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

1 The petition identifies the underlying case a s The State of Texas v. George Aguilar , cause number 1 49 7 176 , in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Ruben Guerrero presiding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                          86,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,321,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    55,000
<INVENTORY>                                    132,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,629,000
<PP&E>                                      11,816,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,949,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,727,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,069,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,694,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,727,000
<SALES>                                      2,484,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,484,000
<CGS>                                        1,677,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  584,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                156,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            154,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   154,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06


</TABLE>
2017-0654.

#### State v. Yates.

Cuyahoga App. No. 105427. On appellant’s application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1




May 18, 2006




Mr. Kent McRee

4424 Staten Island Drive

Plano, Texas 75024




Dear Kent,




Claimsnet.com is pleased to offer you the position of President with a starting date no later than
May 30, 2006. This position reports to me and will greatly influence the success of Claimsnet.com.



The starting salary for your position is $4,807.69 per bi-weekly pay period.



You will also be eligible for a monthly commission plan associated with a quota to be mutually
agreed upon. I will review your progress in 90 days.



As additional incentive, I have made a recommendation to the board of directors of Claimsnet.com
that you be granted an option to purchase 1,000,000 shares of Claimsnet.com common stock. The grant
date of these options will be the date of approval by the board.



You will also be offered, upon eligibility, the full employee benefit package. The offering of
these employee benefits and plans in and of themselves does not signify that an employee will be
employed for the requisite time (30 days) necessary to qualify for these benefits and plans.



This letter is not to be considered a contract guaranteeing employment for any specific duration.
As an at-will employee, both you and the company have the right to terminate your employment at any
time.



If you accept this position, on your first day of employment we will provide additional information
about company objectives and policies, benefit programs, general employment conditions and
completion of employment and benefit forms. To fulfill federal identification requirements, you
should bring documentation to support your identity and eligibility to work in the United States.
Please contact me if you have any questions about which documents are acceptable.



We are please to be able to offer you this position with Claimsnet.com as a key member of what we
feel is a company that offers a tremendous opportunity for personal and professional success. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (972) 458-1701 x112. I look forward
to working with you, and believe that you will find your employment a rewarding experience.



Sincerely,




Don Crosbie

CEO
No. 12-8074.

#### Baldwin *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Franklin Credit Management Corporation, Plaintiff, v Theresa Striano Revocable Trust, Respondent. 5 Boro Group Enterprises, LLC, Nonparty Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 364]—

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Sharon A.M. Aarons, J.), entered August 3, 2015, which denied 5 Boro Group Enterprises, LLC’s (5 Boro’s) motions to, among other things, permanently enjoin the Receiver, his agents and employees *429from entering the subject premises, collecting rents or interfering with the possessory rights of 5 Boro (as successor in interest to plaintiff), without prejudice to seeking the same relief in a consolidated mortgage foreclosure action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motions granted.

By judgment of Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mark Friedlander, J.), entered March 8, 2013 in the underlying strict foreclosure action commenced by plaintiff, defendant’s rights and interests were extinguished by its failure to file a notice of its intention to redeem the mortgage on the property sold to plaintiff, and plaintiff was deemed-to hold the property free and clear from any and all such liens, encumbrances or interest (see RPAPL 1352; *Bass v D. Ragno Realty Corp.,*111 AD3d 863, 864-865 [2d Dept 2013]). Given that the Receiver at issue was appointed in the consolidated mortgage foreclosure action, that defendant’s rights in that action are now extinguished by the judgment entered March 8, 2013, and that the Receiver is subject to the control of the court *(see Matter of Kane [Freedman*— Tenenbaum], 75 NY2d 511, 515 [1990]), the motion court should have granted 5 Boro’s motions.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Renwick, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gesmer, JJ.
#### Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4, Appellant, v Frances Thompson, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[53 NYS3d 529]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered on or about December 9, 2015, which denied plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4’s (Deutsche Bank) motion to vacate its default and restore the action to the calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*461The motion court determined that the discrepancy between the physical description of the person personally served, according to the affidavit of service, and that of defendant warranted a traverse hearing (see *Matter of Devon M.,*169 AD2d 690, 691 [1st Dept 1991]). After several adjournments, Deutsche Bank failed to appear at the final scheduled hearing.

Even if Deutsche Bank has provided a reasonable excuse for default based on law office failure (see *Dokmecian v ABN AMRO N. Am.,*304 AD2d 445, 445 [1st Dept 2003]), the motion to restore was properly denied. Deutsche Bank provided no proof on the motion that it could have prevailed at the traverse hearing.

Concur—Renwick, J.R, Richter, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.
#### Nordic PCL Const., Inc. v. LPIHGC, LLC

CAAP-11-0000350

02/14/2014

Vacated and Remanded
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 5, 2017

d1212

Order 

Clerk

January 5, 2017

154072 & (18)(24)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154072

COA: 331152

Wayne CC: 10-005835-FC

GLORIA LYNN COLUMBERT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to supplement is GRANTED. The application 

for leave to appeal the May 17, 2016 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is 

DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 

6.502(G). The motion to remand is DENIED.
# L_2010169EN.01000301.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 169/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 169/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 586/2010

of 2 July 2010

amending for the 130th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (1), and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) (2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

| (2) | On 25 June 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one entity from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 25 June 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one entity from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.

| (3) | Annex I should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex I should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 July 2010.

For the Commission

For the President

Karel KOVANDA

Acting Director General for External Relations

---

(1)  
  OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.

1

(2)  Article 7a was inserted by Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 (OJ L 346, 23.12.2009, p. 42).

2

---

ANNEX

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended as follows:

The following entry under the heading ‘Legal persons, groups and entities’ is deleted:

‘
  Asat Trust Reg., Altenbach 8, FL-9490 Vaduz, Liechtenstein.’

---
# NESO analyst digs deep to support enterprise

/ Published Aug. 16, 2019
Fort Belvoir, Virginia, 
As a senior operations research analyst in the Defense Logistics Agency’s Nuclear Enterprise Support Office, Mark Melius conducts in-depth data-analysis studies and data-mining operations that help the agency’s senior leaders improve DLA’s support to the Defense Department’s nuclear enterprise.

Established in January 2015, the DLA NESO was stood up by then DLA Director Air Force Lt. Gen. Andy Busch so the agency could fully respond to the needs of the Air Force and Navy nuclear communities. The NESO mission focuses on maintaining and providing awareness of sustainment operations for DoD’s nuclear and space systems.

“I joined NESO in June 2015 as part of the team’s build-out to support [the director’s] guidance for DLA to formally support improving the readiness of the Air Force’s nuclear weapon systems,” Melius said.

But his DLA career spans 20 years; 17 years as a civilian with DLA Logistics Operations and three years as an Army senior military operations research analyst at the DLA Office of Operations Research and Resource Analysis in Richmond, Virginia. Before that, he served 22 years in the Army.

Melius’s favorite part of working for DLA has been access to data and analytic tools, allowing him to scan all of DLA’s supply chains and business processes to assess the agency’s ability to effectively support warfighters.

He also appreciates the ability to develop and present analytic and fact-based recommendations to senior leaders that help influence resource and asset-allocation decisions.

One of his best memories is conducting a cost assessment for the Army that identified critically at-risk National Item Identification Numbers and associated weapon systems for the logistics planning and congressional funding justifications for Operation Desert Storm.

Melius knows he makes a difference in his job because he’s been able to apply his and his oldest son’s experiences of being a direct military customer of DLA’s support.

The nuclear enterprise faces the challenge of low-density and aged weapon systems, built with outdated technology and engineering data that may be unavailable, making needed repair parts difficult to obtain, Melius said.

Improving the nation’s readiness and sustainment of nuclear weapons systems is a top priority for DoD and DLA, he added, and DLA has invested over $150 million in inventory to improve material support.

“Both the Air Force and Navy are in process of modernizing their weapons system platforms,” Melius said. “DLA is fully engaged with both services in developing supportability concepts for each weapons system modernization effort.”