alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 31.2


Certification of Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

I, Rose Frawert, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mid-State Raceway, Inc.
and Subsidiary;

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 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
functions):

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 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.


Date: January 10, 2004
/s/ Rose Frawert
Rose Frawert
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer


                                       12
No. 10-5408.

#### Zechariah Benjamin, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 920, 131 S. Ct. 292,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7180.

178 L. Ed. 2d 191,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 596 F.3d 976.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16344]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of 
June 22, 1998.
    An open meeting will be held on Monday, June 22, 1998, at 11:00 
a.m.
    A closed meeting will be held on Monday, June 22, 1998, following 
the 11:00 a.m. closed meeting. A closed meeting will be held on 
Tuesday, June 23, 1998, at 10:00 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), 
(8), (9)(i) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at 
the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Unger, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
    The open meeting scheduled for Monday, June 22, 1998, at 11:00 
a.m., will be:
    The Commission will hear oral argument on an appeal by Laurie Jones 
Canady, formerly a salesperson with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & 
Smith Incorporated, from an administrative law judge's initial 
decision. For further information, contact Kermit B. Kennedy at (202) 
942-0879.
    The closed meeting scheduled for Monday, June 22, 1998, following 
the 11:00 a.m. open meeting, will be:
    Post argument discussion.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 
June 23, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions.
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact: The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: June 16, 1998.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16344 Filed 6-16-98; 11:46 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
```
# 2021 Spring Change Your Clock/Change Your Battery Campaign

/ Published March 10, 2021
Richmond, Va., 
Fire and Emergency Services personnel with Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond are encouraging employees to change batteries in smoke alarms when they change their clocks for Daylight Saving Time March 14.

That’s right, it’s time to change your batteries again. The Change Your Clock Change Your Battery Campaign, which is semi-annual, serves as a reminder to change out batteries in alarms (smoke, carbon monoxide, etc.) Also, it can serve as a reminder to not just to check the batteries in your alarms, but every piece of equipment you may rely on in an emergency that uses batteries.

During spring months there are usually several severe weather alerts that may sometimes bring tornadoes and we would like everyone to as prepared as possible in this event.

According to some statistics shared by the National Fire Protection Association:
      - Three out of five home fire deaths result from fires in properties with smoke detector present but not working.
      - More than 38% of home fire deaths result from fires in which no smoke alarms are present.
      - The risk of dying in a home fire is cut in half in homes with working smoke alarms.

The U.S. Fire Administration provides answers to these common questions:
      - When should I replace my smoke alarms? Smoke alarms do not last forever. If your smoke alarms are 10 years old or older, replace them with new alarms.
      - What types of smoke alarms should I buy? This is a not an easy question to answer due to not all fires being the same. However, they fall under two basic types: ionization and photoelectric. There are also dual sensor smoke alarms, which contain both ionization and photoelectric smoke sensors. Also, choose interconnected smoke alarms, so when one sounds, they all sound.
      -  What do I do if my smoke alarm sounds while I am cooking? Never take the battery out of your smoke alarm while cooking!

If a smoke alarm sounds while you're cooking or taking a shower with lots of steam, do not remove the battery. You should open a window or door and press the “hush” button, wave a towel at the alarm to clear the air, and move the entire alarm several feet away from the kitchen or bathroom.

Disabling a smoke alarm or removing the battery can be a deadly mistake.
160 A.3d 694

#### IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT J.K. (J.K.-PETITIONER)

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.
No. 10-5146.

#### Michey Allen Weicksel, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 906, 131 S. Ct. 250,

178 L. Ed. 2d 165,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6967.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 375 Fed. Appx. 261.
#### Trust Mortgage, LLC, Appellant, v Peter Andrews et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[61 NYS3d 898]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Ra-kower, J.), entered December 1, 2015, which, for the reasons stated on the hearing record, granted the motion of defendants Peter Andrews, Gregory Palmer a/k/a Greg Palmer, DBI Coinvestment Fund VIII, LLC, DBI Coinvestor Fund VIII LLC and Dreambuilder Investments, LLC to have their late-filed answer deemed timely, and denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As it is clear from the record that defendants intended to contest this matter, and in fact submitted two answers, albeit with technical defects, prior to plaintiff filing the amended complaint, and in light of the lack of prejudice caused to plaintiff by defendants’ brief delay in answering the amended complaint, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the cross motion to compel plaintiff to accept service of the late answer *(see Artcorp Inc. v Citirich Realty*Corp., 140 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2016]). We have considered appellant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur— Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
#### Pfeifer v. Westmoreland County Tax Claim Bureau

04/26/2016

403 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 122 A.3d 1200
No. 09-11154.

#### Sahi Sarwar, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 864, 131 S. Ct. 148,

178 L. Ed. 2d 89,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6569.

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. 347.
# New commander takes over at DLA Aviation at Ogden

/ Published July 7, 2022
RICHMOND, Va., 
Air Force Col. Jason Okumura became the commander of Defense Logistics Agency Aviation at Ogden, Utah during a change of command ceremony held on Hill Air Force Base, Utah, June 28. The ceremony was officiated by former DLA Aviation commander Air Force Brig. Gen. David Sanford, who was selected for promotion to Maj. Gen.

Okumura assumed command from Air Force Col. Christopher Carmichael, who will now serve as commander of the 748TH Supply Chain Management Group on Hill Air Force Base.

Okumura previously served as the Chief of the Commander’s Action Group, Air Force Materiel Command, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, where he led a small team responsible for developing the command’s strategy and communicating the commander’s philosophy and intent to 89,000 people in the command. He also planned all travel, unit visits, speaking engagements and provided daily meeting support to the command team.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2180 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2180

  To define certain terms for purposes of the Federal Land Policy and 
            Management Act of 1976, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 14 (legislative day, June 7), 1994

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To define certain terms for purposes of the Federal Land Policy and 
            Management Act of 1976, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Local Government Planning 
Involvement Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY.

    Section 103(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
``For purposes of the preceeding sentence, the term `local government 
entity' means a local political entity created or recognized pursuant 
to State law, including--
            ``(1) county commissions;
            ``(2) special service districts;
            ``(3) water districts;
            ``(4) cities;
            ``(5) towns; and
            ``(6) regional and local government associations.''.

SEC. 3. COORDINATION.

    Section 202(c)(9) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9)) is amended by inserting after ``land 
resource management programs.'' the following: ``Such coordination 
shall include (A) notification by the Secretary to Governors of States 
and heads of local governments of the intent or plan to conduct land 
use surveys, inventories, studies, and planning; (B) inclusion of State 
and local government employees in all inventory, planning, and 
management activities upon request by the heads of State and local 
governments; and (C) making available, upon request by the heads of 
State and local governments, regulations, inventories, management 
plans, and long- and short-term work plans relating to Federal land use 
and management during their preparation.''.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Scottish Re Group Limited (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Elizabeth A. Murphy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (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 result of
               operations of the Company.

/s/  Elizabeth A. Murphy
------------------------

Elizabeth A. Murphy
Chief Financial Officer
August 9, 2005

        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Scottish Re Group Limited and will be retained by Scottish Re
Group Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
No. 10-6065.

#### Russell D. Smith, Petitioner v. Department of Homeland Security.

562 U.S. 944, 131 S. Ct. 367,

178 L. Ed. 2d 237,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7286.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 387 Fed. Appx. 2.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2288

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that a foster

care provider and a qualified foster individual may share the same home.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 15 (legislative day, JULY 11), 1994

Mr. GREGG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that a foster care provider and a qualified foster individual may share the same home.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Foster Care Living

5 Arrangements Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. FOSTER CARE LIVING ARRANGEMENTS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 131 of the Internal Reve8 nue Code of 1986 (relating to foster care payments) is

9 amended by adding at the end the following new sub10 section:
2

•S 2288 IS

1 ‘‘(d) SPECIAL RULE WHERE PROVIDER LIVES WITH

2 INDIVIDUAL RECEIVING CARE.—For purposes of this sec3 tion, if a provider of foster care is living in the home of

4 the individual receiving the foster care, that home shall

5 be treated as the home of the foster care provider.’’

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

7 subsection (a) shall apply to payments on and after the

8 date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending

9 on and after such date.

Æ
No. 09-8755.

#### Dennis Hood, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 956, 131 S. Ct. 395,

178 L. Ed. 2d 261,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7629.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 561 U.S. 1028, 130 S. Ct. 3500, 177 L. Ed. 2d 1095, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5488.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">GL Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Gibson, Darrell, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Progressive Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Karina Barska of counsel), for appellant.McCormack &amp; Mattei, P.C. (Jamila Shukry and Stafford Harmitt of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered August 4, 2016. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of only $54.74.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of $178.58 for acupuncture services rendered by a licensed acupuncturist. At a nonjury trial, the parties stipulated that plaintiff had established its prima facie case, that defendant had timely denied the claims at issue andthat defendant's witness was a certified coder. The Civil Court took judicial notice of the workers' compensation chiropractic fee schedule. In her testimony, defendant's coder explained how she had calculated the payments for the acupuncture services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 based on the chiropractic fee schedule, and she testified that defendant was offering payment in the amount of $54.74 for an office visit billed under CPT code 99203. Plaintiff did not call a witness to rebut the coder's testimony. The Civil Court, finding the testimony by defendant's witness to be credible, determined that defendant had properly paid the claims billed under CPT codes 97810 and <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>97811, and awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $54.74 for the office visit billed under CPT code 99203. A judgment was entered on August 4, 2016 pursuant to the decision.</p><p>Upon a review of the record, we find that the Civil Court properly determined that defendant had established that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services billed under CPT codes 97810 and 97811 in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services performed by chiropractors (<a href="../2009/2009_29467.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.</i>, 26 Misc 3d 23</a> [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2009]) and that plaintiff had failed to rebut defendant's showing. </p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. </p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and ELLIOT, JJ., concur. </p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: April 12, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
No. 10-5506.

#### William D. Carter, Petitioner v. Randy Grounds, Acting Warden.

562 U.S. 926, 131 S. Ct. 310,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7356.

178 L. Ed. 2d 202,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
No. 10-5893.

#### Sarah Lynn Cormier, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 941, 131 S. Ct. 356,

178 L. Ed. 2d 230,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7332.

October 4, 2010.

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

*231Same case below, 607 F.3d 133.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marvis Rivers, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 274]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Margaret L. Clancy, J.), rendered January 18, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree and burglary in the second degree (two counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 17 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are *576unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject them on the merits. The prosecutor never suggested that certain DNA evidence, which was unidentifiable, linked defendant to the crime, and defendant’s assertion that the prosecutor made the kind of misrepresentations described in *People v Wright*(25 NY3d 769 [2015]) is meritless. The other remarks challenged by defendant, either directly or as part of his ineffective assistance claim, were fair responses to the defense summation, and they did not shift the burden of proof or improperly appeal to the jurors’ sympathies *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]).

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims are unreviewable on direct appeal because they involve matters not reflected in, or fully explained by, the record (see *People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *People v Love,*57 NY2d 998 [1982]). Accordingly, since defendant has not made a CPL 440.10 motion, the merits of the ineffectiveness claims may not be addressed on appeal. In the alternative, to the extent the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v*Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Defendant has not shown that any of counsel’s alleged deficiencies fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, or that, viewed individually or collectively, they deprived defendant of a fair trial or affected the outcome of the case. Regardless of whether defendant’s attorney should have raised the issues presently suggested by defendant, his failure to do so did not cause him any prejudice. Furthermore, we do not find that any lack of preservation may be excused on the ground of ineffective assistance.

Concur— Acosta, J.P., Richter, Andrias, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.