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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, John W. Richardson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Qwest Corporation;

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(s) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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: May 1, 2007



|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/S/    JOHN W.
RICHARDSON John W. Richardson Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended November 30, 2002 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

|                                                            | 
|----------------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Norbert E. WoodhamsNorbert E. Woodhams
January 14, 2003

31
#### Robert Rosenthal, Respondent, v Lora A. Rosenthal, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 551]

Appeal by the defendant from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jerry Garguilo, J.), entered June 27, 2013. The interlocutory judgment, upon a decision of that court dated August 30, 2012, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal sum of $21,164.54 as and for counsel fees.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s application for an award of counsel fees is denied.

In this matrimonial action, the defendant moved to set aside *774the parties’ stipulation of settlement. After a hearing, the Supreme Court denied the defendant’s motion. Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted an application for an award of counsel fees consisting of his attorney’s affirmation, to which were appended the attorney retainer agreement and the attorney’s invoice for services. In an interlocutory judgment entered June 27, 2013, made upon a decision dated August 30, 2012, the court awarded the plaintiff counsel fees in the sum of $21,164.54.

Under the general rule, the prevailing party in litigation may not collect his or her counsel fees unless supported by statute, court rule, or written agreement of the parties *(see Flemming v Barnwell Nursing Home & Health Facilities,*Inc., 15 NY3d 375, 379 [2010]; *Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers,*74 NY2d 487, 491 [1989]). Here, the plaintiff’s attorney averred that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of counsel fees as the prevailing party on the underlying motion, appending her firm’s retainer agreement and invoice for services. These submissions failed to demonstrate the plaintiff’s entitlement to that award on the basis of applicable statute, court rule, or written agreement between the parties.

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contentions have been rendered academic.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s application for an award of counsel fees.

Balkin, J.P., Austin, LaSalle and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2566 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

revise the Safer Choice Standard to provide for a Safer Choice label 

for pots, pans, and cooking utensils that do not contain PFAS, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2019 

Mr. SOTO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to revise the Safer Choice Standard to provide for a Safer Choice label for pots, pans, and cooking 

utensils that do not contain PFAS, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SAFER CHOICE LABEL FOR POTS, PANS, AND 

4 COOKING UTENSILS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

7 Environmental Protection Agency shall revise the Safer 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2566 IH

1 Choice Standard of the Safer Choice Program to identify 

2 the requirements for a pot, pan, or cooking utensil to meet 

3 in order to be labeled with a Safer Choice label, including 

4 a requirement that any such pot, pan, or cooking utensil 

5 does not contain any PFAS. 

6 (b) DEFINITION.—In this Act, the term ‘‘PFAS’’ 

7 means a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance with 

8 at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# Six-month rotation, DLA Energy’s pipeline to success

/ Published Aug. 12, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, *This is the first article in a series of DLA Energy workforce development opportunities.*
2017-0874.

#### State ex rel. Kaplan v. Bozza.

In Mandamus. On answer of respondents. Alternative writ granted. Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05, the parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within 20 days, relator shall file a brief within 10 days of the filing of the evidence, respondents shall file a brief within 20 days after the filing of relator’s brief, and relator may file a reply brief within 7 days after the filing of respondents’ brief.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
# Staff burns midnight oil to support “big” requirement

/ Published June 9, 2016
Okinawa, Japan, 
Just as the “dark of night” does not deter the U.S. Postal Service, Defense Logistics Agency personnel in Okinawa, Japan, recently showed that they will not let the lateness of the hour nor the size the property keep them from supporting the warfighter.

The Marine Corps, like the Army, is seeking to turn-in its excess and obsolete equipment. When discussions about III Marine Expeditionary Force’s turn-in needs revealed some larger items and road restrictions on their movement, personnel at DLA Disposition Services at Okinawa were ready and willing to change their schedules to help the Marines get the job done. Area Manager Eric Mills said special road permits were requested and arrangements were made to have the equipment delivered after midnight for two nights in a row to allow a huge bulldozer and a backhoe to move during hours when road restrictions are more relaxed.

“They may not look big to U.S. standards, but here in Okinawa, they are ginormous,” Mills said. “I think the real take away is the willingness of our receiving team to adjust ... to accommodate the customer’s ... requirements. They put the 'support' in customer support.”
No. 10-6060.

#### John P. Dunbar, Petitioner v. Hawaii.

562 U.S. 1067, 131 S. Ct. 646,

178 L. Ed. 2d 487,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9268,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii denied.
Williams, Renee (OST) l^^ltl^T hdl-O^T'd^S'^^^ 

Subject: FW: Essential Air p':";T f;"" -""•_ 

From: Greg Turner [mailto:rocking_t_ranch@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:41 PM 

To: Little, Cynthia M (DOT) 

Subject: Essential Air 

Hello Cindie, 

My wife, Peggy, and I own property in Chisana, Alaska (CZN), It has come to our attention that Essential Air 

Service could be discontinued for us. 

We have only one way to get our food and fuel into Chisana and that is by air. The U.S. Park Service closed our 

trails, into Chisana, which gives us few options. 40 Mile Air has been wonderful to the residents, part-time 

residents and property owners. Without them Chisana could become a ghost-town. 

Please continue to support us and others that live full or part time in bush Alaska. 

Sincerely, 

Greg Turner
No. 10-5217.

#### Stephen Villa, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 909, 131 S. Ct. 259,

178 L. Ed. 2d 172,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6917.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 668.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification of Principal Executive Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or15d-14(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

I,Joseph Loggia, certify that:

(1)          I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Qof Advanstar, Inc. (the “registrant”);

(2)          Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

(3)          Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)          The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         [Reserved]

(c)          Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;

(5)          The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2006
|        | By:    | /s/ Joseph  Loggia      |   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Joseph Loggia           |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
2017-0350.

#### State ex rel. Griffin v. Greene.

In Mandamus.
#### People v Jackson (Rasheed)

4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1771 (Onondaga)

denied 8/24/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)
---

CONSENT OF AUTHORS. de Waal, Pr.Sci.Nat.Deloitte
Mining Advisory ServicesDeloitte Consulting Pty LtdBuilding 4, Deloitte
PlaceThe Woodlands, Woodlands Drive, Woodmead, SandtonJohannesburg,
South Africa

US Securities and Exchange Commission

I, J. Schweitzer, Pr.Sci.Nat., certify that I have read the
written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that
there are any misrepresentations in the information provided to the Company by
Deloitte Mining Advisory Services in the written disclosure in the Form 20F of
Anooraq Resources Corporation.

I do hereby consent to the filing with the regulatory
authorities.

Dated this 1stday of July, 2009.

|/signed/ S. de
      Waal        
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|S. de Waal, Pr.Sci.Nat.          
|Deloitte Mining Advisory Services

---
No. 10-6511.

#### Lee Anton Jackson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 990, 131 S. Ct. 435,

178 L. Ed. 2d 338,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8191.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 598 F.3d 340.
<PAGE>

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Peter R. Kann, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Dow Jones & Company, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying 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 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(s) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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: March 5, 2004

/s/ Peter R. Kann
------------------------
Peter R. Kann
Chief Executive Officer

                                     Page 1
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 111 /Wednesday, June 10, 1998 / Presidential Documents 31881

Presidential Determination No. 98–25 of May 30, 1998

Sanctions Against Pakistan for Detonation of a Nuclear

Explosive Device

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

In accordance with section 102(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, I

hereby determine that Pakistan, a non-nuclear-weapon state, detonated a

nuclear explosive device on May 28, 1998. The relevant agencies and instrumentalities of the United States Government are hereby directed to take

the necessary actions to impose the sanctions described in section 102(b)(2)

of that Act.

You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to

the appropriate committees of the Congress and to arrange for its publication

in the Federal Register

œ–.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, May 30, 1998. [FR Doc. 98–15681

Filed 6–9–98; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
No. 10-6307.

#### Brandon L. Lewis, Petitioner v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 1032, 131 S. Ct. 571,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8679.

178 L. Ed. 2d 418,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 312.
Exhibit 10.4

                                 ZENASCENT, INC.
                                1 Montauk Highway
                              Southampton, NY 11968

September 10, 2002

Mr. Chester English
Livingston Investments, LLC
C/o Law Offices of Harrison K. Chauncey, Jr. 241 Bradley Place
Palm Beach, Florida 33480

Re: Warrant To Purchase Common Stock

Dear Chester:

Reference is hereby made to the Warrant To Purchase Common Stock, dated April
30, 2002 (the "Warrant"), executed by Zenascent, Inc. ("Zenascent") in favor of
Livingston Investments, LLC ("Livingston").

The parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

1. The reference to "One Million (1,000,000)" in the Paragraph of the Warrant
immediately preceding "Section 1." shall be deleted and replaced with "Five
Hundred Thousand (500,000)."

2. The reference to "$1.24" in the definition of "Exercise Price" shall be
deleted and replaced with "$.62."

3. The execution, delivery and effectiveness of this letter agreement shall not
operate as a waiver of any right, power or remedy of the parties, nor constitute
a waiver of any provision of the Warrant. Except as expressly amended and
modified hereby, the provisions of the Warrant are and shall remain in full
force and effect.

4. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts each of which shall
be deemed to be an original and all of which when taken together shall
constitute one and the same agreement. Facsimile machine copies of this letter
agreement may be executed by the parties and shall be deemed as binding as if
originals had been executed.

5. This letter agreement and all rights, obligations and liabilities hereunder
shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this letter agreement on the day
and year first written above.

ZENASCENT, INC.



By: /s/ James DiLorenzo
    ----------------------------
Name:  James DiLorenzo
Title:  Executive Vice President


LIVINGSTON INVESTMENTS, LLC



By: /s/ Chester English
    ----------------------------
Name:  Chester English
Title:     Managing Member
# Director who led DLA support for Iraq surge to join Hall of Fame

/ Published Sept. 19, 2016
# C_2015363EN.01003401.xml

| 3.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 17 September 2015 — Ricoh Belgium v Council

(Case T-691/13) (1)

1

((Public service and supply contracts - Tender procedure - Black and white multifunction printers and maintenance services - Rejection of the bid made by a tenderer - Obligation to state reasons - Transparency))

(2015/C 363/42)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ricoh Belgium NV (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: N. Braeckevelt and A. De Visscher, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos and K. Michoel, acting as Agents, and B. Van Vooren and J. Weytjens, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Council of 29 October 2013 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure UCA 034/13, relating to the purchase or hire of black and white multifunction printers (MFPs) and associated maintenance services in the buildings occupied by the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ 2013/S 83-138901), and to award the contract to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Council of 29 October 2013 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure UCA 034/13, relating to the purchase or hire of black and white multifunction printers (MFPs) and associated maintenance services in the buildings occupied by the General Secretariat of the Council in so far as it concerns lot No 4; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Council of 29 October 2013 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure UCA 034/13, relating to the purchase or hire of black and white multifunction printers (MFPs) and associated maintenance services in the buildings occupied by the General Secretariat of the Council in so far as it concerns lot No 4;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.

1

---