alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Kenneth L. Hignett, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Morgan’s Foods, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose 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 adate within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the “Evaluation Date”); and
c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and
6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whetheror not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.        Date: July 6, 2005 /s/ Kenneth L. Hignett        Kenneth L. Hignett,        Senior Vice President,     Chief Financial Officer & Secretary  
18
NO. 07-10-00292-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JULY 7, 2011

DOMINIC TOMLINSON, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY;

NO. 1169831D; HONORABLE ELIZABETH BERRY, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

	Appellant, Dominic Tomlinson, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery.[footnoteRef:1]  After entry of appellant’s plea of guilty, the trial court ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report.  Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing on punishment.  Following the receipt of evidence on punishment, appellant was sentenced to confinement for a period of 20 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant appeals the judgment of the trial court.  We will affirm the judgment of the trial court. [1:  See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a) (West 2011).] 

Appellants attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.  Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967).  In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Id. at 744-45.  In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial courts judgment.  Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a *pro se* response in this matter.  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a *pro se* response.  Appellant has not filed a response.  By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous.  We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal.  SeePenson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).  We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsels motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial courts judgment is affirmed.[footnoteRef:2] [2:  Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellants right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.] 

								Mackey K. Hancock

                                                       Justice

Do not publish. 

3
#### People v Brunson

1st Dept: 143 AD3d 431

denied*
A Phantom and Falcon move onto DSCR
 
  By Environmental Management Division, DLA Installation Management Richmond
  On Aug. 26 and 27, Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia became the home to two new aircraft displays, a F-4 Phantom II and a F-16 Fighting Falcon. “Many visitors to the installation think that our static displays are chosen just for their visual appeal,” said Jimmy Parrish, chief of the Environmental Management Division within Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond. “However, our aim is to proudly maintain and display those planes and helicopters that the employees of the installation worked hard to support and keep in the air, either currently or in the past. Each display becomes almost a personal thing.” There are nearly 20 DSCR static displays. Acquiring one can be a long and laborious task.  These aircraft took over five years to obtain. There was a long wait for F-16 availability, and it was certainly the most difficult to acquire. The placement has to be planned thoroughly in support of the DSCR Installation Master Plan and supported by the Installation facility budget. Adam Crooks, lead general supply specialist in the installation’s Operations Support Branch, was responsible for finalizing the acquisition of both displays. “The F-4 came from the Vermont National Guard and the F-16 came from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona,” Crooks said. “Both acquisitions were coordinated through the National Museum of the United States Air Force located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.” The F-16 was transferred to installation management while the F-4 is technically on loan from the museum. “We have seven static displays loaned to us from either the National Museum of the United States Air Force or through the National Naval Aviation Museum at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida,” Crooks added. “Both institutions are extremely protective of their planes and require that we maintain their appearance at museum quality.” Once the static displays were officially acquired, they had to be broken down for shipment, trucked to DSCR, reassembled, correctly painted to accurately reflect their military markings and safely placed in their final locations. Ensuring that all these steps took place was the responsibility of Roman Ogryzko, a mechanical engineer in the installation’s Engineering Services Branch. “We already had an available contractor who was knowledgeable of the necessary painting schemes,” Ogryzko said. “Our biggest challenge was hoping for a suitable break in the rain to allow for the safe use of a large crane to place both planes.” “It is very exciting to be able to see the hard work of so many people come together, especially on something that reflects in a positive manner the contributions of the employees of the installation,” Parrish said.
# DLA COVID-19 support guided by strong alliances with whole-of-government partnerships

/ Published Oct. 22, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Strong alliances with other federal agencies and its role as the Defense Department’s lead agent for medical supplies made the Defense Logistics Agency an essential contributor to the nation’s coronavirus response.

The Economy Act allows federal agencies to buy goods and services from one another for actual costs. The bulk of DLA’s $2.14 billion in support to the pandemic has been in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Department of Health and Human Services for state and local governments, nursing homes, schools and the Strategic National Stockpile.

According to its charter, DLA provides risk-mitigated logistics support to worldwide DOD assets as well as federal agencies and, when authorized by DOD and Congress, state and local governments. Organizations like FEMA and HHS leverage DLA capabilities through interagency agreements and a formal mission-assignment process requesting the agency’s support.

“We maintain liaisons with over 40 federal agencies. Those relationships, along with formal memorandums of agreement that outline everything from DLA responsibilities to financial agreements, have been vital to our success throughout COVID-19,” said Lisa Roberts, DLA’s Whole of Government Division chief. 

Support during natural disasters like hurricanes Katrina, Sandy and Maria have enabled DLA to refine its whole-of-government partnerships. And as requirements for limited medical supplies and personal protective equipment for COVID-19 soared – DLA alone saw a 1500% increase in orders for protective equipment from non-medical, non-DOD customers – the agency leaned on lessons gleaned during the 2014 Ebola crisis in Liberia.

“We discovered then the value of working together rather than competing against each other for supplies and the importance of using each other’s expertise rather than duplicating efforts,” DLA’s executive director of operations, Dave Kless, said of the agency’s help providing building materials and medical supplies for Ebola treatment units on behalf of the U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of Homeland Security.

DLA has supported Defense Support of Civil Authority operations for much of the last decade by assisting efforts like domestic emergencies, border security, and natural and manmade disasters, Kless added.

“DLA’s access to the U.S. industrial base is expansive, and we have existing long-term contracts in place that we can leverage for additional support,” he said. “DLA has the expertise and resources available to support multiple contingencies.”

Kless said the agency doesn’t need to direct the effort to help meet national needs.

“DLA was integrated with all activities in support of COVID response operations since day one. Just like in other domestic disaster response, DLA does not need to be the lead agency to provide critical support,” he added.
No. 09-9919.

#### Craig Gordon Brown, Petitioner v. Michigan.

562 U.S. 842, 131 S. Ct. 77,

178 L. Ed. 2d 50,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6098.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.

Same case below, 279 Mich. App. 116, 755 N.W.2d 664.
# L_2010335EN.01005601.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 335/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 335/56

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1223/2010

of 17 December 2010

on the issue of import licences for applications lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 under the tariff quota opened by Regulation (EC) No 1384/2007 for poultrymeat originating in Israel

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 of 31 August 2006 laying down common rules for the administration of import tariff quotas for agricultural products managed by a system of import licences (2), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1384/2007 of 26 November 2007 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/96 as regards opening and providing for the administration of certain quotas for imports into the Community of poultrymeat products originating in Israel (3), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2010 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 relate to quantities exceeding those available for licences under the quota with order number 09.4092. The extent to which import licences may be issued should therefore be determined by establishing the allocation coefficient to be applied to the quantities requested,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The quantities for which import licence applications have been lodged under Regulation (EC) No 1384/2007 for the subperiod from 1 January to 31 March 2011 shall be multiplied by the allocation coefficients set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 December 2010.

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

Done at Brussels, 17 December 2010.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 40.

3

---

ANNEX

| Group No | Order No | Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.1.2011-31.3.2011
  (%) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| IL1 | 09.4092 | 91,737227 |

Group No

Order No

Allocation coefficient for import licence applications lodged for the subperiod from 1.1.2011-31.3.2011

(%)

IL1

09.4092

91,737227

---
# L_2010271EN.01000401.xml

| 15.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 271/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 271/4

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 923/2010

of 14 October 2010

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Asparago di Badoere (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Asparago di Badoere’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Asparago di Badoere’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following 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, 14 October 2010.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 22, 29.1.2010, p. 52.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

ITALY

Asparago di Badoere (PGI)

---
# Agency supports East African relief efforts

/ Published May 3, 2019
 Camp Lemmonier, Djibouti, 
Mozambique is back in the news as Cyclone Kenneth batters the Eastern African nation just six weeks after Cyclone Idai caused an estimated 600 deaths and left many at risk of cholera and without adequate drinking water.

The U.S. military wrapped up its post-Idai aid and assistance efforts in the country only two weeks ago, according to Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa news releases. That effort included more than 100 task force members on the ground in Mozambique and another 100 personnel working from its headquarters at Camp Lemmonier in Djibouti.

The CJTF-HOA effort was part of a larger coalition of civil and non-governmental organizations working together under the lead of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Last week, the State Department said the U.S. government had provided 700 metric tons of aid to Mozambique that included plastic sheeting, water purification units and containers, kitchen sets, latrines and blankets.

Vincent Ramirez, DLA Disposition Services’ Djibouti site lead, said that elements of the CJTF-HOA forward teams were able to quickly evaluate his office’s on-hand stock of used and excess equipment and acquire some helpful items to augment their response mission needs as they headed out for the cyclone-battered country.

Among the equipment they scooped up for the response mission were four 5,000-watt electrical generators turned in by the U.S. Navy, a “water buffalo” portable industrial water tank turned in by an Air Force unit, tarps for protecting their equipment, and white boards for planning and coordination sessions.

The two-person DLA Disposition Services office serves the U.S. Navy-managed Camp Lemmonier, which hosts CJTF-HOA headquarters. About 4,000 service members and contract personnel conduct anti-terrorism and anti-piracy missions throughout the region and help respond to humanitarian and disaster response needs.
Order entered September 23, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 13

- 00566

- CV

CMERIT USA, INC

. , Appellant

V.

SALZBRENNER ENTERPRI SES, INC. D/B/A COWGIRL JEWELS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Cou rt Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 11

- 14845



### O RDER

We GRANT appellee’s September 18, 2013 unopposed motion for an extension of time

to file a brief. Appellee shall file its brief on or before October 23, 2013.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                              UTILICORP UNITED INC.
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
                            INTEREST COVERAGE RATIOS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          12 MONTHS ENDED                                YEARS ENDED DEC 31,
                                           SEPTEMBER 30,1998       1997          1996          1995         1994           1993
<S>                                               <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>          <C>
Income from continuing operations
  before provision for income taxes .......        $195,970      $223,800      $186,460      $131,812      $146,532      $116,366

Add:
  Interest on long-term debt ..............         127,537       124,357       126,933       110,227        89,526        89,027

  Interest on short-term debt and other ...          13,187        10,879        18,151        16,847         7,257         7,207

  Portion of rents representative of
  the interest factor .....................          15,782        17,548        16,537        15,346        15,329        15,008

Income as adjusted ........................        $352,476      $376,584      $348,081      $274,232      $258,644      $227,608


Fixed Charges

  Interest on long-term debt ..............        $127,537      $124,357      $126,933      $110,227      $ 89,526      $ 89,027

  Interest on short-term debt .............          13,187        10,879        18,151        16,847         7,257         7,207

  Portion of rents representative of
  the interest factor .....................          15,782        17,548        16,537        15,346        15,329        15,008

Fixed Charges .............................        $156,506      $152,784      $161,621      $142,420      $112,112      $111,242


RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES ........            2.25          2.46          2.15          1.93          2.31          2.05
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12

                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST I
                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING I, L.P.
                      COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
            COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DIVIDENDS
                              (Dollars in Millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          PERIOD DECEMBER 17 TO DECEMBER 27, 1996
                                     -------------------------------------------------
                                     MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED   MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED
                                          CAPITAL TRUST I          FUNDING I, L.P.
                                     -----------------------   -----------------------
<S>                                           <C>                       <C>     
Earnings                                      $671,356                  $785,818
                                              ========                  ========
Fixed charges                                 $   --                    $   --
Preferred securities dividend                                    
  requirements                                 651,215                   671,356
                                              --------                  --------
Total combined fixed charges and                                 
  preferred securities dividends              $651,215                  $671,356
                                              ========                  ========
Ratio of earnings to combined                                    
  fixed charges and preferred                                    
  securities dividends                            1.03                      1.17
</TABLE>