alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Morgans Foods, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and
Rule 15d-15(f)) 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) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over
financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provided reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for
external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) 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 August 17, 2008, based on such evaluation; andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during registrants second 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
function):
 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; andb) 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: October 3, 2008
    /s/ Kenneth L. HignettKenneth L. HignettSenior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Secretary
Exhibit 23.1 

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-122579, 333-106110 and 333-47834) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan,2000 Director Option Plan, 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and certain December 1999 non plan option agreements of Synplicity, Inc. of our reports dated March 2, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofSynplicity, Inc., Synplicity, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Synplicity, Inc., included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Palo Alto,California 

March 2, 2005
& 0 &.

: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

We am in rot olorlng oopy at a bill Itoqalar SW~icLl vr MB. labor to bo oatgloyed by thboState ‘Wring to wdv1ee 

### r8peial t1on or7t e ed e aubatituter bill, rhlah merely suspender the Lnhe use of prison labcvr en & faram for the duration 

### of the ber of addlQiona1 .m-mthm ata you may oars to de.8 h ou? draft of suoh eubotltuts blll the nunbeT of aieatho ahonld be fillad

XC was our thcm?bt th?lt ret- &1 eaer,2ancy R n.l.f&t laaff to a.siblguity. You alGo lnqufre rrhathsrr thz Le~iolatsra~ has tks fiweb to 8usF~d a law. 'ingureti~nrbly, the Le$irhtura, end the 

### I.eeleleturconly, dose hers at&h Fwer, lo loavg am the ouspaaricn or ~ttcb. rtaiuta doas sot 

### tmntratmeany provislen of the Stats GTFederal Constitationt.
EXHIBIT 32.01

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of DRYCLEAN USA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Michael S. Steiner, Principal Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

|(1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 14, 2007

| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| | /s/ Michael S. Steiner     
| | Michael S. Steiner         
| | Principal Executive Officer
|

23
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14980]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 98-073]


Agency Information Collection: Submission for OMB Review, Comment 
Request

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following 
proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before July 
6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Mr. Richard Kall, 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carmela Simonson, NASA Reports 
Officer, (202) 358-1223.

Reports

    Title: Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns and 
Related Contract Provisions NASA FAR Supplement Part 18-19, SF 295.
    OMB Number: 2700-0073.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Need and Uses: NASA requires reporting of small disadvantaged 
business subcontract awards in order to meet its Congressionally 
mandated goals.
    Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 225.
    Responses Per Respondent: 2.
    Estimated Annual Responses: 450.
    Estimated Hours Per Request: 13.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 5,850.
    Frequency of Report: Biannually.
Donald J. Andreotta,
Deputy Chief Information Officer (Operations), Office of the 
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-14980 Filed 6-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
#### People v Symonds

4th Dept: 147 AD3d 1325

denied
No. 09-1333.

#### Fernando Canto, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 830, 131 S. Ct. 85,

178 L. Ed. 2d 27,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6560.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 593 F.3d 638.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1333 

KA 12-01723 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DERICK W. BARKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.)

 

BRIDGET L. FIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C.

Noonan, J.), rendered April 2, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of strangulation in the second

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of strangulation in the second degree (Penal

Law § 121.12). Defendant’s contention that County Court erred in

refusing to make the presentence report (PSR) available to him before

sentencing is without merit inasmuch as defendant did not request the

PSR before sentencing (see generally CPL 390.50 [2] [a]). Defendant’s

contention that the court erred in refusing to make the PSR available

to him in connection with this appeal is likewise without merit. 

Indeed, the submissions before us reflect that defendant received and

reviewed the PSR in a timely fashion in connection with this appeal. 

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: January 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
2017-0974.

#### Johnson v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Cuyahoga App. No. 105040, 2017-0hio-4304. Cause accepted, judgment vacated, and cause remanded to the trial court for application of *Ferguson v. State,*151 Ohio St.3d 265, 2017-Ohio-7844, 87 N.E.3d 1250. Second appeal not accepted.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
No. 09-1564.

#### Evelyn Ortiz, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rafael I. Ortiz-Pagan, Deceased, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 840, 131 S. Ct. 211,

178 L. Ed. 2d 46,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6019.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 353 Fed. Appx. 412.
#### In the Matter of Travelers Property Casualty Corp., Appellant, v Lara Bocharova, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 920]

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated February 11, 2003, which granted the respondent’s motion, treated by the Supreme Court as one for leave to reargue or renew but which was, in actuality, to vacate and/or *534modify a prior order of the same court dated October 5, 2001, granting the petition and permanently staying arbitration upon her default in appearing, and upon reargument, vacated the order dated October 5, 2001.

Ordered that the order dated February 11, 2003, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated October 5, 2001, is reinstated.

The Supreme Court erred in treating the respondent’s motion as one for leave to reargue and/or renew. The respondent’s motion sought only to vacate and/or modify the order dated October 5, 2001, entered upon her default in appearing *(see East Is. Assn. v Carbone,*150 AD2d 422 [1989]).

“To vacate [an] order entered upon [a] default in appearing in opposition to [a] petition to permanently stay arbitration [of an uninsured motorist claim], the [movant] was obligated to establish both a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense” *(Matter of AIU Ins. Co. v Fernandez,*281 AD2d 542, 543 [2001]; *see Presbyterian Hosp. v New York Cent. Mut. Ins. Co.,*277 AD2d 299 [2000]; *Matter of C.N.A. v Jae Jim Shim,*290 AD2d 438 [2002]). Here, the respondent failed to offer any excuse, let alone a reasonable one, for the failure to respond to the petition for a stay of uninsured motorist benefits which resulted in the order dated October 5, 2001, entered on default. Under such circumstances, the respondent was not entitled to vacate her default, and it is unnecessary to examine whether or not she established a meritorious defense to the petition *(see Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon v Matteo,*271 AD2d 422 [2000]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### Damon v. Fletcher

OP 17-0215

05/09/17

Denied

Original Proceeding Habeas Corpus
|                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                                  
|                                                                                               
|Waddington, NY Natural Gas Pipeline Exports (Price) to Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|Waddington, NY Natural Gas Pipeline Exports (Price) to Canada (Dollars per Thousand 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | --     | --     | --    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | --     | 4.71   | 3.42   | 5.16   | 5.77   | 3.58   | 2.49   | 3.13   | 3.56   | 2.71  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1.98   | 3.71   | 6.95   | 3.07   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Price of Crosby, ND Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Canada (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Price of Crosby, ND Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Canada (Dollars per Thousand 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | --     | 6.81   | 7.70   | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | W      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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 Izabela S., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Angelica A. et al., Appellants; Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[63 NYS3d 665]—

Order of fact-finding, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about January 8, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a hearing, found that respondents had neglected the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that *447the respondent parents neglected the subject child *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]), a child with severe physical and neurological anomalies, by failing to provide her with adequate nutrition *(see Matter of Camara R.,*263 AD2d 710, 712 [3d Dept 1999]), by missing crucial appointments with medical professionals and specialists *(see Matter of Briana S. [LaQueena S.],*91 AD3d 447, 448 [1st Dept 2012]) and by being lax in their day-to-day oversight of her care and safety *(see*Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [A], [B]).

Contrary to the parents’ unpreserved contention, Family Court properly conformed the pleadings to the proof adduced at the hearing (Family Ct Act § 1051 [b]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Gesmer and Oing, JJ.
# DLA Distribution Norfolk, Virginia command changes hands in traditional ceremony

/ Published June 11, 2021
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Norfolk, Virginia, a key strategic logistics hub co-located with the largest U.S. Naval shipyard, changed command from Navy Capt. Thomas Neville III to Navy Capt. Andrew J. Lewis June 11.

DLA Distribution Commander, Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Keith D. Reventlow, presided over the ceremony. “Capt. Neville oversaw 15 major facilities in three states that employ over 700 civilian and contract employees,” Reventlow said. “During his tenure, despite a 45% increase in workload through the materiel processing center, processing time decreased by over 60%, resulting in enhanced readiness to the fleet.”

In support of Covid-19, the medical mission team at DDNV pushed out supplies to all Navy afloat medical departments and six overseas naval hospitals. In the early stages of the pandemic, Neville led his team to outfit the USNS Comfort with only five days’ notice, transforming the hospital ship from a 250 bed to 1,000 bed operation in support of the ship’s deployment to New York.

In the height of the pandemic, DDNV became the test kit, meals ready to eat and personal protective equipment distribution hub for the entire fleet and delivered over 4,500 doses of the Moderna vaccine to service members stationed overseas.

Incoming commander, Capt. Lewis is a native of Snellville, Georgia, and a 1998 graduate of the Virginia Military Institute with a Bachelor of Arts in English. He received a Master of Business Administration from the University of Washington in 2008.

He most recently served as executive officer to the 19th and 20th Director of the Defense Logistics Agency at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. He was previously assigned to the F-35 Lightning II Integration Office within DLA Headquarters.

His afloat assignments include supply officer, USS Carl Vinson, stock control and material division officer, USS John C. Stennis, first permanent crew supply officer, USS Ardent, homeported in Manama, Bahrain and supply officer, MCM Rotational Crew Charlie assigned to USS Pioneer. He qualified officer of the deck during this tour.

His additional shore assignments include deputy force supply officer and director, Afloat Supply Policy, Training, and Inspections, Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet, San Diego, California; supply officer, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington; assistant to the director, Supply Corps Detailing and career counselor, Navy Personnel Command, Millington, Tennessee; director, E-2 Hawkeye/C-2 Greyhound Integrated Weapons Support Team and director, Customer Operations, Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Weapon Systems Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Basic Qualification Course instructor and training officer, U.S. Navy Supply Corps School, Athens, Georgia.
#### Luxor Capital Group, L.P., et al., Appellants, v The Seaport Group LLC et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[50 NYS3d 70]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered April 18, 2016, which, respectively, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly dismissed the amended complaint alleging breach of contract, as there was no binding, enforceable contract. The instant messages exchanged between the parties reflect that the transaction at issue was “subject to language” to be agreed upon, and was contingent upon “mutually satisfactory documentation.” Further, plaintiff Luxor Capital Group, L.P.’s internal communications and actions reflect an intent not to be bound absent execution of various documents and receipt of additional information, and the record shows that Luxor never received those documents and information *(see Kowalchuk v Stroup,*61 AD3d 118, 121 [1st Dept 2009]; *Amcan Holdings, Inc. v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,*70 AD3d 423, 426 [1st Dept 2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 704 [2010]).

The Court of Appeals’ decision in *Stonehill Capital Mgt. LLC*
      *591
      *v Bank of the W.*(28 NY3d 439 [2016]) does not compel any result to the contrary. Here, in contrast to *Stonehill,*the documents to be executed was not between plaintiffs and defendants. Rather, in this case, the document was to be executed by plaintiffs and a third-party seller; indeed, the parties did not even discuss the document before agreeing to the trade. Moreover, unlike in *Stonehill,*the totality of the circumstances here does not reflect any certainty as to the existence of an enforceable agreement.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Richter, Moskowitz, Feinman and Gische, JJ.