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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jerold J. Goade Jr., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Loudeye Corp.

     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 officer(s) 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)) for the registrant and 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) 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 the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
     recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
     of an annual report) 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 officer 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 the registrant's board of
directors:

     (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; and

     (b) 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: September 2, 2003                       /s/ Jerold J. Goade Jr.

                                       -3-
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-103515, 333-81940, 333-85486 and 333-115216of Duke Energy Corporation on Form S-3, and Registration Statement Nos. 333-29563, 333-12093, 333-50317, 333-59279, and 333-84222 of Duke Energy Corporation on Form S-8, of our reports dated March 16, 2005, relating to the financial statementsand financial statement schedule of Duke Energy Corporation (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of new accounting pronouncements and an explanatory paragraph regarding DukeEnergy’s agreement in February 2005 to sell its interests in TEPPCO to Enterprise GP Holdings L.P. and to transfer a 19.7% interest in Duke Energy Field Services to ConocoPhillips) and management’s report on the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Duke Energy Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

March 16, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16684]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 984]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status Cirrus Logic, Inc. 
(Integrated Circuit), Fremont, California

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
    Whereas, an application from the City of San Jose, California, 
grantee of FTZ 18, for authority to establish special-purpose subzone 
status at the integrated circuit distribution facility of Cirrus Logic, 
Inc., in Fremont, California, was filed by the Board on July 10, 1997, 
and notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register 
(FTZ Docket 59-97, 62 FR 38972, 7/21/97); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status at the integrated circuit distribution facility of Cirrus Logic, 
Inc., located in Fremont, California (Subzone 18C), at the location 
described in the application, and subject to the FTZ Act and the 
Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of June 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

    Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16684 Filed 6-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NOVEMBER 3, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-14524

Non-Argument Calendar

 

D. C. Docket No. 04-00494-CV-FTM-33SPC 

MICHAEL F. FAGAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellant, 

versus

CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, 

A. WILLIAM MOSS, 

individually, 

ROGER REINKE,

individually, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida 

 

(November 3, 2005)

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

In this case, the district court, dismissing appellant’s claims, held that

appellant’s allegations failed to state a claim under the First and Fourteenth

Amendments allegations for the infringement of appellant’s rights of free speech

and freedom of association. Appellant now appeals the court’s rulings. For the

reasons stated in the district court’s dispositive order of July 15, 2005, we agree

that appellant’s allegations fail to state a claim for the infringement of either

rights—free speech or freedom of association.

AFFIRMED.
No. 09-10205.

#### Terasence Steven Mitten, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1079, 131 S. Ct. 635,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9225.

178 L. Ed. 2d 510,

November 29, 2010.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 592 F.3d 767.
DLA Aviation poised for process excellence
 
  By Richard Schwing, Material Management Division chief, DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City
  Sixty key leaders and subject matter experts throughout Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and DLA Headquarters Strategic Plans and Policy attended the first-ever Senior Process Excellence Course at the Lotts Conference Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, Sept. 8 - 9.  The course covered key concepts supporting Aviation Process Excellence and concluded with an exercise involving teams using interconnecting blocks to build toy houses.  It showed how communication, common goals, and constraint resolution are key enablers to process improvement. Air Force Col. Ken Ruthardt, DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City commander said, “We have seen the tremendous improvements in Air Force depot maintenance processes and metrics, and are excited to bring these same concepts to DLA Aviation through the APEX initiative.” The initial construct for APEX was built around the Air Force’s “Art of the Possible” concept that originated in the Air Force Sustainment Center at Tinker, Robins, and Hill Air Force Bases located in Oklahoma, Georgia, and Utah, respectively. Navy Cmdr. Matt Brickhaus, DLA Aviation at San Diego commander, echoed Ruthardt saying, “APEX will enable my team to develop tiered communication reviews, local governance boards and transformation teams to achieve ‘road to’ goals." The SPEC is a key training course for the overall APEX initiative.  APEX is built around cornerstones including tiered communication and governance, performance management (i.e., metrics synchronization), constraint identification, process gating and flow, and continuous process improvement tools and concepts.  DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City is the lead for APEX development and implementation. The team took “Art of the Possible” training materials and transformed them into something that would resonate across DLA Aviation. Jiley McNeese, director of Procurement Operations at Huntsville, Alabama, DLA Aviation Strategic Acquisitions Programs Directorate, saw immediate value in the concepts when he said, “APEX and this valuable CPI training will help us improve our acquisition processes, so we can provide enhanced warfighter support.  The training was very organized and detailed.” “Process improvement is a core part of our culture at DLA Aviation,” said Cathy Contreras, DLA Aviation Strategic Acquisitions Programs director. “The APEX training will take that culture to the next level.  Understanding our gated processes and asking key questions will help us continue to improve our performance.”
Exhibit 23.2CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.33-127939, 33-126173, 33-44551,33-56289, 33-64317, 333-46615, 333-59790, 333-65822, 333-75539,333-75541, 333-75543, 333-91613, 333-131408, 333-139213,333-145998) of R.H. Donnelley Corporationof our report dated March 15, 2006 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form10-K.        /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPRaleigh, North Carolina
[562 U.S. 42]

#### MADISON COUNTY, NEW YORK et al., Petitioners v ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK

562 U.S. 42, 131 S. Ct. 704,

178 L. Ed. 2d 587,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 16

[No. 10-72]

Decided January 10, 2011.

PER CURIAM.

[562 U.S. 42]

We granted certiorari, *post,*p. 960, 131 S. Ct. 459, 178 L. Ed. 2d 286 (2010), on the questions “whether tribal sovereign immunity from suit, to the extent it should continue to be recognized, bars taxing authorities from foreclosing to collect lawfully imposed property taxes” and “whether the ancient Oneida reservation in New York was disestablished or diminished.” Pet. for Cert. *i.*Counsel for respondent Oneida Indian Nation advised the Court through a letter on November 30, 2010, that the Nation had, on November 29, 2010, passed a tribal declaration and ordinance waiving “its sovereign immunity to enforcement of real property taxation through foreclosure by state, county and local governments within and throughout the United States.” Oneida Indian Nation, Ordinance No. 0-10-1 (2010). Petitioners Madison and Oneida Counties responded in a December 1, 2010 letter, questioning the validity, scope, and permanence of that waiver; the Nation addressed those concerns in a December 2, 2010 letter.

[562 U.S. 43]

We vacate the judgment and remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That court should address, in the first instance, whether to revisit its ruling on sovereign immunity in light of this new factual development, and—if necessary—proceed to address other questions in the case consistent with its sovereign immunity ruling. See *Kiyemba*v. *Obama,*559 U.S. 131, 130 S. Ct. 1235, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1070 (2010) *(per curiam).*

Petitioners are awarded costs in this Court pursuant to this Court’s Rule 43.2.

It is so ordered.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Houston P.B., Appellant.

[67 NYS3d 56]

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered March 23, 2016, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a term of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for assault in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The record of the plea proceeding is inadequate to demon*713strate that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal and, thus, the purported waiver of his right to appeal is not enforceable *(see People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]; *People v Brown,*122 AD3d 133 [2014]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the County Court lost jurisdiction to adjudicate him in violation of probation due to a delay between a probation warrant and his appearance in court at the proceeding in which the court revoked the prior sentence of probation and imposed a period of incarceration *(see People v Douglas,*94 NY2d 807, 808 [1999]; *People v Horvath,*37 AD3d 33, 36 [2006]; *People v Williams,*19 AD3d 868, 869 [2005]). In any event, this contention is without merit. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s failure to raise this argument before the County Court (see *generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]).

The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the County Court improperly sentenced him without obtaining an updated presentence report (see *People v Heine,*122 AD3d 644, 645 [2014]; *People v McGinn,*96 AD3d 977 [2012]; *People v Gledhill,*91 AD3d 886 [2012]; *People v Ortega,*1 AD3d 533 [2003]; *cf. People v Jackson,*106 AD2d 93, 98 [1984]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5663.

#### Ronald L. Adams, Petitioner v. P. L. Vazquez, et al.

562 U.S. 934, 131 S. Ct. 334,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7118.

178 L. Ed. 2d 217,

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 623.
# C_2015016EN.01003701.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/37

---

Order of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-17/13) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Contract concerning the Pocemon project - Repayment of the sums advanced - Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note - Reminder letter - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2015/C 016/58)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Cordewener, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Drakakakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought under Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration by the General Court first, that the applicant is not obliged to repay the whole sum paid to it by the Commission in relation to the Pocemon project, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), secondly, that the applicant is not required to pay flat-rate compensation in relation to that project and, thirdly, that the Commission is not entitled to set off the amounts that it owes to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

---
No. 10-5678.

#### Satrohan Singh, Petitioner v. Philip Heath, Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 965, 131 S. Ct. 461,

178 L. Ed. 2d 293,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8030,

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
# DLA Support Team Middle East visits 386th Expeditionary Support Squadron

/ Published Dec. 23, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
The Defense Logistics Agency Support Team Middle East visited the 386th Expeditionary Support Squadron at Ali Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait, Dec. 8.

                The Defense Logistics Agency Support Team Middle East toured the MQ9-Reaper during a visit to the 386th Expeditionary Support Squadron at Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait, on Dec. 8. The agency received a number of informative briefings during the visit. (Courtesy photo)                            DLA Support Team Middle East visits 386th Expeditionary Support Squadron                            The Defense Logistics Agency Support Team Middle East toured the MQ9-Reaper during a visit to the 386th Expeditionary Support Squadron at Al Salem Air Base, Kuwait, on Dec. 8. The agency received a number of informative briefings during the visit. (Courtesy photo)            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Courtesy PhotoVIRIN: 221223-D-OH989-002

During the visit, the Air Force gave an overview on how DLA is supported through the Expeditionary Logistics Readiness Squadron’s Inbound and Outbound cargo section that is a part of the Transportation Flight, as well as through the Materiel Management Flight’s Customer Service, Inventory, Equipment Accountability Element, Retail Sales, Aircraft Parts Store and their Expeditionary Theater Distribution Center.

Representatives from the Inbound and Outbound Transportation Management Office explained to DST-ME how the Cargo Movement Operations System shifts shipment data to the global air transportation execution system of cargo received.

Systems like CMOS provide real time updates, allowing the DST-ME to receive shipping information for parts that have gone through customs and arrived at ASAB for further processing.
1

Tại sao tôi cần thử nghiệm 

Lao Phổi Không Hoạt Động?

Lao Phổi, hay bệnh Lao Phổi rất dễ lây lan và có khả năng gây tử vong. Vi khuẩn lao phổi có 

thể sống trong cơ thể nhiều năm mà không có triệu chứng gì. Đây gọi là Lao Phổi không hoạt động 

hay Nhiễm Lao tiềm ẩn. Nếu không được chữa trị, Lao Phổi không hoạt động có thể chuyển sang 

bệnh Lao Phổi bất kỳ lúc nào khiến quý vị trở bệnh. Khi chuyển thành bệnh Lao Phổi, 

vi khuẩn có thể lây lan theo đường không khí. Thử nghiệm và chữa trị Lao Phổi không hoạt 

động có thể giúp bảo vệ bản thân quý vị, gia đình, bạn bè, và cộng đồng.

Liệu tôi có nguy cơ bị nhiễm Lao Phổi?

Hàng triệu người tại Hoa Kỳ nhiễm Lao Phổi không hoạt động nhưng không hề hay biết.

Suy nghĩ

Ai cũng có thể nhiễm Lao Phổi, nhưng có thể có nguy cơ cao hơn nếu quý vị:

Quý vị vẫn có thể bị nhiễm Lao Phổi dù đã tiêm vắc-xin ngừa Lao Phổi

(còn được gọi là vắc-xin BCG) vì vắc-xin giảm tác dụng theo thời gian.

sinh ra hoặc thường

xuyên đi đến các

quốc gia có nhiều người

mắc bệnh lao phổi,

gồm có các quốc gia tại

Á Châu, Phi Châu,

và Mỹ La-tinh

gần đây có tiếp xúc với 

người nhiễm bệnh lao phổi

có hệ miễn dịch yếu vì một

số loại thuốc hoặc các

bệnh nhất định, như bệnh

tiểu đường, ung thư,

và HIV

đang hoặc đã sống trong các làm việc tại những nơi có

khu tập thể nơi bệnh lao phổi nguy cơ lây nhiễm lao phổi cao,

thường xuyên xảy ra, ví dụ như như nhà cho người vô gia cư,

nhà cho người vô gia cư, trung tâm cải huấn,

hoặc nhà tù và nhà dưỡng lão
2

3

Để tìm hiểu thêm về bệnh Lao Phổi và cách để bảo vệ bản thân và 

người khác, xin vào www.cdc.gov/thinktesttreattb

Thửnghiệm

Chữa trị

Làm cách nào để thử nghiệm Lao Phổi?

Bác sĩ của quý vị có thể 

khuyên quý vị thử nghiệm 

qua máu do việc này có 

thể hoàn thành trong một 

lần, và tính chính xác cao 

hơn nếu quý vị đã từng 

tiêm vắc-xin Lao Phổi. 

Thử nghiệm máu đo lường 

cách hệ thống miễn dịch 

của quý vị phản ứng với vi 

khuẩn gây Lao Phổi. 

Với thử nghiệm qua da, 

một kim tiêm nhỏ sẽ được 

sử dụng để đưa các chất 

thử nghiệm vào dưới da. 

Quý vị sẽ cần quay trở lại 

gặp bác sĩ trong 2-3 ngày 

để kiểm tra phản ứng.

Hiện có 2 cách để thử nghiệm nhiễm khuẩn lao. Tham khảo với 

bác sĩ của quý vị để được tư vấn loại thử nghiệm phù hợp nhất.

Hiện có những phương pháp chữa trị nào?

Nếu quý vị nhiễm Lao Phổi không hoạt động, hiện đã có các 

phương pháp chữa trị nhanh và tiện lợi có thể bảo vệ ngăn 

ngừa quý vị không trở bệnh tránh chuyển thành bệnh 

Lao Phổi hoạt động.

Chữa trị Lao Phổi không hoạt động là cách tốt nhất để 

bảo vệ ngăn ngừa quý vị không chuyển bệnh Lao Phổi. 

Hãy tham khảo với bác sĩ của quý vị về thuốc và các hỗ 

trợ cộng đồng trong thời gian chữa trị.

Các chương trình chăm sóc sức khỏe công và tư có thể đài thọ 

chi phí xét nghiệm và điều trị nhiễm Lao Phổi.

Thử Nghiệm Lao Phổi

qua Máu

Thử Nghiệm Lao Phổi

qua Da

301098
2016-1790.

#### Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Davis.

Huron App. No. H-15-009, 2016-Ohio-7421.
No. 10-6845.

#### Russell Montgomery, Petitioner v. McKither Bodison, Warden.

562 U.S. 1072, 131 S. Ct. 665,

178 L. Ed. 2d 496,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9106.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 341.
No. 10-6927.

#### Pressley Alston, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1113, 131 S. Ct. 829,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9827.

178 L. Ed. 2d 564,

December 13, 2010.

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

*565Same case below, 610 F.3d 1318.