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

I, Thomas M. Pyra, certify that:

          1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Clark,
               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 report; and

          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.

Date:  August 19, 2003                      /s/ Thomas M. Pyra
                                            ------------------------------------

                                            Title:  Chief Financial Officer and
                                                    Chief Operating Officer
#### In the Matter of Maspeth Avenue Operating Corporation, Petitioner, v Raymond P. Martinez, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 868]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determi*447nation of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles dated March 4, 2002, which confirmed the findings of an Administrative Law Judge, made after a hearing, that the petitioner violated New York City Traffic Rules and Regulations 34 RCNY § 4-15 (b) (9) and (10), and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401 (7) (F) (b), and imposed a penalty.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

“It is well established that in order to annul an administrative determination, made after a hearing, the court must be satisfied, after reviewing the record as a whole, that the record lacks substantial evidence to support the determination” *(Matter of Siano v Dolce,*256 AD2d 582 [1998]). “A reviewing court may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by the Hearing Officer where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists” *(Matter of McQueeney v Dutchess County Sheriff,*223 AD2d 710, 711 [1996]).

The testimony of the traffic enforcement agent who issued the summonses regarding the location of the weighing site and his training, accompanied by certificates establishing the accuracy of the devices he used in weighing the petitioner’s vehicle, provided a sufficient basis for the determination of the Administrative Law Judge *(see Matter of Ferrara Equip. v Martinez,*305 AD2d 411, 412 [2003]; *Matter of Scara-Mix, Inc. v Martinez,*305 AD2d 418 [2003]; *Matter of R & D Equip. Leasing Co. v Adduci,*220 AD2d 900 [1995]; *Matter of Solomon Oliver Contr. Corp. v Adduci,*201 AD2d 979 [1994]; *see also Matter of DeOliveira v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs.,*271 AD2d 607 [2000]). As the determination is supported by substantial evidence, we decline to disturb it.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Townes, JJ., concur.
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2454

To make technical corrections to an Act preempting State economic regulation

of motor carriers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 22 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Mrs. MURRAY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To make technical corrections to an Act preempting State

economic regulation of motor carriers.

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 ‘‘Intrastate Motor Car5 rier Transportation Technical Corrections Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

7 Section 11501(h)(2) of title 49, United States Code,

8 is amended—

9 (1) by striking out ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub10 paragraph (A);
2

•S 2454 IS

1 (2) by striking out the period at the end of sub2 paragraph (B) and inserting in lieu thereof a semi3 colon; and

4 (3) by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(C) does not apply to the transportation of

6 garbage and refuse;

7 ‘‘(D) does not apply to the transportation of re8 cyclable materials, as defined under section

9 10733(b), pursuant to programs conducted under

10 the auspices of any unit of government; and

11 ‘‘(E) does not apply to motor carriers providing

12 tow or wrecker services.’’.

Æ
No. 10-5416.

#### In re Larry Rayford, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 825, 131 S. Ct. 293,

178 L. Ed. 2d 256,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7794.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Retention Agreement, Dated 10/28/2004, by and between Company and Allan Haims



  
 Exhibit 10.3

  
 

 
  
 October 27, 2004 
  
 Allan Haims 
 The Wet Seal, Inc. 
 26972 Burbank 
 Foothill Ranch, California 92610 
  
 Dear Allan: 
  
 I would like to formalize our discussions with regard to changes in your employment at The
Wet Seal, Inc. 
  
 Allan, we would like you to continue your role as President,
and the Compensation Committee has agreed and authorized me to offer a grant to you 155,000 shares of restricted stock in Wet Seal. The shares would vest 25% on the first anniversary of the grant, and 25% on the second anniversary, and 50% on the
third anniversary. The vesting period would be three years. In the event of involuntary termination, vesting will be accelerated on the next tranche of options, e.g., if termination were to occur before the first anniversary of the grant, 25%
of the grant would become vested; if termination were to occur after the first but before the second anniversary of the grant, an additional 25% of the grant would become vested. If involuntary termination, occurs in connection with a Change in
Control (as defined below), then the full grant will be immediately vested. 
  
 “Change in Control” means an event consisting of any person or group both (a) becoming the beneficial owner directly or indirectly of 20% or more of the outstanding voting securities of The Wet Seal, Inc. and (b) of whose
beneficial share ownership exceeds the numbers of shares owned beneficially by all directors an officers of The Wet Seal, Inc. (excluding shares owned beneficially by any director or officer who is the person or a member of the group). The existence
of a “group” and the “beneficial ownership” of shares shall be determined in accordance with Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated
thereunder. 
  
 I would ask that you please return a signed copy to me agreeing to
these terms and conditions so that I may pass this on to the Compensation Committee as soon as possible. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  

	
	
	 /s/ Peter D. Whitford

	 Peter D. Whitford

	 Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

	
	 /s/ Allan Haims

	 Allan Haims

	 President

	
	 Date: 11/1/04


  
 26972 burbank 
 foothill ______________ ___ RE EMPLOYMENT 
 949 583 9029 949 583 0715 fax
##### 



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 Annual Report of Covansys Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
James S. Trouba, Chief Financial 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:  (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. /s/ James S. Trouba James S. Trouba
Chief Financial Officer
March 14, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1

            CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING CHIEF
                                FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Distribution
Management Services, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended February 29,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Leo Greenfield, Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief
Financial 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 containing the financial statements 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 24, 2004                                     /s/ Leo Greenfield
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Leo Greenfield,
                                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                                 Acting Chief Financial Officer
1 

### Sutton, Lisa

From: Brachtl, Megan

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:52 PM

To: Sutton, Lisa

Subject: FW: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

Attachments: McCabe letter to air directors final SSM SIP call 05-22-15.pdf

Megan V. Brachtl, Group Leader

State and Local Programs Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(919) 541

‐ 2648

brachtl.megan@epa.gov

From: Daly, Carl

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:51 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan

Cc: Clark, Adam

Subject: ND: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

FYI

‐ ND

Carl Daly, Director

Air Program

303

‐ 312

‐ 6416

From: Daly, Carl

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:38 AM

To: Terry O'Clair

Cc: Monica Morales

Subject: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

Terry

T his email is a follow

‐ up to my update on the SAD call about the startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) SIP call. North

Dakota will be included in the SIP call

, but EPA is partially denying the petition for North Dakota because we have

already addressed a couple of the SSM provisions that EPA was petitioned on.

The information below is from headquarters.

The EPA Administrator signed a final action today to ensure states have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources

at all times, including when the source is operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the

treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are treated

in state implementation plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action, EPA has

revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.2 The EPA is calling for 36 states, including your state, to make changes to their SIPs, to protect public health and ensure

consistency with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s current SSM Policy. Your state will have 18 months to submit revisions

of your state plan to EPA. Your state’s revised SIP is due to EPA by November 22, 2016.

As part of our notification to your state about this final SIP call, attached to this email is a letter from the EPA’s Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe. To inform you of the details on the final action, including

the specific SIP provisions your state needs to address, we have posted a pre

‐ publication version of the action on our

website at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ur banair/sipstatus/emissions.html

.

Carl Daly, Director

Air Program

303

‐ 312

‐ 6416
# C_2014085EN.01001202.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged on 16 December 2013 — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA

(Case C-665/13)

2014/C 85/21

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

Applicant:

Defendant: Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the principle of equal treatment, from which the prohibition of discrimination is derived, be interpreted as applying to public sector employees? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the principle of equal treatment, from which the prohibition of discrimination is derived, be interpreted as applying to public sector employees?

| 2. | Does the fact that the State imposed a unilateral suspension of the payment of those items of remuneration and applied this only to a specific category of workers — those in the public sector — constitute discrimination having regard to the nature of the employment relationship? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the fact that the State imposed a unilateral suspension of the payment of those items of remuneration and applied this only to a specific category of workers — those in the public sector — constitute discrimination having regard to the nature of the employment relationship?

---
# C_2013274EN.01001001.xml

| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/10

---

Appeal brought on 11 July 2013 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2013 in Case T-304/11 Alumina d.o.o. v Council and Commission

(Case C-393/13 P)

2013/C 274/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Alumina d.o.o., European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | dismiss the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the action;

| — | order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs relating to the appeal and to the proceedings before the General Court |
| --- | --- |

—

order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs relating to the appeal and to the proceedings before the General Court

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Council relies on a sole ground of appeal against the judgment of 30 April 2013 in Case T-304/11, by which the General Court annulled Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011 of 11 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina. (1)

1

The Council submits that the General Court misinterpreted the concept of ‘sales carried out in the ordinary course of trade’ as used in Article 2(1) and (6) of the Basic Regulation. (2) Specifically, the Council argues that sales may take place ‘in the ordinary course of trade’ even if the seller has increased its sale price by incorporating in that price a premium to cover the risk of non-payment or of late payment.

2

According to the Council, the contrary interpretation adopted by the General Court is, in addition, incompatible with the principle of legal certainty.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 125, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

2

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001064048
<NAME> DIAMOND BRANDS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,147
<ALLOWANCES>                                       773
<INVENTORY>                                     22,285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,915
<PP&E>                                          35,006
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,854
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 106,224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,392
<BONDS>                                        179,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (95,740)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   106,224
<SALES>                                         89,233
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,233
<CGS>                                           62,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,092
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,140
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (136)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,276
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,276
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2527 Referral Instructions Senate (RIS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2527

 To amend section 257(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 to modify the treatment of losses from asset sales.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 6 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

 Mr. Murkowski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred jointly pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, to the 
 Committees on the Budget and Governmental Affairs, with instructions 
 that if one committee reports, the other committee has thirty days to 
                        report or be discharged

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 257(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 to modify the treatment of losses from asset sales.

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

SECTION 1. OFFSETTING LOSSES FROM ASSET SALES.

    Section 257(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Act of 1985 is amended by striking the semicolon at the end thereof and 
inserting the following: ``. Effective beginning fiscal year 1995, the 
proceeds from the sale of an asset may be applied to offset the loss of 
any revenue or receipts resulting from such sale.''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Annual Report of
PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
the date hereof (the Report), I, Howard G.
Phanstiel, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.     the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of
the period covered by the Report and results of operations of
the Company for the period covered by the Report.

Date: March 4, 2004



| |     |                        
| | --- | -----------------------
| | By: | /s/ HOWARD G. PHANSTIEL

| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| |                            
| | Howard G. Phanstiel        
| | Chairman of the Board      
| | and Chief Executive Officer



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | This certification shall not be deemed
    filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, or
    otherwise subject to the liability of Section 18 of the
    Exchange Act. Such certification shall not be deemed to be
    incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
    Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the
    Company specifically incorporates it by reference.