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

** **

**OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Edward O. Irion, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dakota GrowersPasta Company, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered 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 other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, 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 financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

Date:December 17, 2007

 

 
|   | /s/ Edward O. Irion     |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Edward O. Irion         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
No. 11M57.

#### Enrique Aragon-Hernandez, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1108, 132 S. Ct. 1072,

181 L. Ed. 2d 729,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 255.

January 9, 2012.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
No. 09-517.

#### Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, et al., Petitioners v. Richard Hershey, et al.

559 U.S. 962, 130 S. Ct. 1504,

176 L. Ed. 2d 151,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1072.

February 22, 2010.

Motion of DRI — The Voice of the Defense Bar for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 571 F.3d 672.
No. 09-8282.

#### James Acker, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

559 U.S. 952, 130 S. Ct. 1539,

176 L. Ed. 2d 135,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1354.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
ITEM: Vegetables, Mixed, No 10 size can ************************

 (VGM) Primary * MONOGRAPH: 2B5

************************

NSN: 8915-01-450-7395 ITEM SPECIFICATION :US Stds for GDS

 US GRD A

CHARACTERISTICS OF ITEM:

APPEARANCE: Peas, carrot dices, lima beans, corn kernels, and varying sized green 

beans. Color profile: Olive green peas and beans (green and lima); orange-yellow carrots, and 

yellow corn.

ODOR: Typical of a heat processed vegetable mix.

FLAVOR: Typical of a heat processed vegetable mix with a slightly salty taste.

TEXTURE: Corn is firm and slightly chewy while remaining vegetables are soft (Grade 

C for carrots, Grade B for green beans, Grade A for other vegetables). 

ESTIMATED SHELF-LIFE AT: 80 DEGREES F: 36 months

 100 DEGREES F: 6 months

POSSIBLE DETERIORATIVE CHANGES:

Appearance: Some slight color loss may occur.

Odor: Product may become slightly stale.

Flavor: Product may become slightly bland, with an over processed flavor.

Texture: Carrots, green beans, and peas may become softer and mushy.

UNIQUE EXAMINATION/TEST PROCEDURES: None.
# C_2017337EN.01000202.xml

| 7.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8309 — Volvo Car Corporation/First Rent A Car)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 337/04)

On 26 July 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8309. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8309. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### J. Gordon, *Appellant,*v. Joseph Ginsburg, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed February 2, 1926.

*Caraballo & Moran,*for Appellant;

*McKay, Withers & Ramsey,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and .argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
FINANCE OFFICE POINT OF CONTACT (FOPOC)

SPECIAL OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT (SOE) AND

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES EQUIPMENT (FESE)

TAILORED LOGISTICS SUPPORT PROGRAM (TLSP)

In an effort to maximize support to our SOE and FESE customers, the following information is provided to 

assist with the ordering confirmation and funding receipt process.

Price Acknowledgement Spreadsheet (PAS)

All orders must be submitted unfunded. Upon receipt of the PAS, the registered FOPOC should follow steps 

below to ensure timely receipt and processing of the order(s). Note that the PAS displays anticipated Lead 

Time (Column S) provided by the vendor.

1. Reply to ALL on the email back to DLA with Price Acknowledgement Spreadsheet AND associated funding 

document (i.e. DD Form 448 (MIPR)) included/attached - - DO NOT change the subject of the email in any way, 

as this includes all pertinent information for tracking your order(s). 

2. Send Price Acknowledgement Spreadsheets AND MIPRs to the appropriate program e-mail address: 

SOEPriceAcknowledge@dla.mil or FESEPriceAcknowledge@dla.mil. NOTE: Submission to this mailbox will 

be the only way to ensure timely receipt and processing of your order(s).

3. The total dollar value identified on the Price Acknowledgement Spreadsheet MUST match the amount on the 

MIPR to the penny. Multiple MIPRs can be used to fund an order; however, there must only be one (1) MIPR per 

line item.

4. For MIPR-funded orders, the following will remain the same for all orders placed under the SOE/FESE TLSP:

i. Signal Code: B

ii. Fund Code: XP

iii. Supp Add: SC0503

5. MIPR amendments will not be accepted if the Basic MIPR has not been accepted by DLA’s Finance Office.

Reference the Customer Guidelines document for additional information on the SOE/FESE TLS 

programs:

http://www.dla.mil/TroopSupport/ConstructionandEquipment.aspx

For any questions regarding the FOPOC Review Process or the SOE/FESE TLS program, please contact 

your designated TVLS or send your inquiry to SOEOrders@dla.mil or FESOrders@dla.mil.
**EXHIBIT 23.4**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our report dated March 23, 2018, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of NorthStar Real Estate Income II, Inc. attachedas an exhibit to the Annual Report of Colony NorthStar Credit Real Estate, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017. We consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in theRegistration Statement of Colony NorthStar Credit Real Estate, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-222812).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

New York, New York 

March 23, 2018
No. 09-8385.

#### Miguel Mijarez, Petitioner v. Florida.

559 U.S. 994, 130 S. Ct. 1743,

176 L. Ed. 2d 217,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2210.

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 22 So. 3d 538.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER G RANTING T EMPORARY R ELIEF

Appellate case name: Professional Advantage Software Solutions, Inc. v. West Gulf

Maritime Association Inc.

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 5

- 010 06

- CV

Trial court case number: 2012

- 58827

Trial court: 151st Judicial District Court of Harris County

On December 10 , 201 5

, appellant

, Professional Advantage Software Solutions,

Inc. , filed an emergency motion to stay the trial court proceedin gs. Appellee, West Gulf

Maritime Association Inc. filed a response to the emergency motion. By order dated

December 15, 2015, we denied the emergency relief. On December 22, 2015, appellant

filed a motion for rehearing en banc. Appellee filed a respons e to the motion for

rehearing en banc. After further consideration, we grant appellant’s request for

temporary relief and stay all trial proceedings until further orders of this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 29.3. The motion for rehearing en banc is denied as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown.

Date: December 31, 2015
The HONORABLE PAUL A. MAGNUSON, Chief Judge of the United States *

District Court for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4235

___________

Marla J. Norton, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

AMISUB St. Joseph Hospital, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 12, 1998

Filed: September 18, 1998

___________

Before BOWMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and MAGNUSON, District Judge. *

___________

PER CURIAM.

When AMISUB Corporation acquired St. Joseph’s Hospital in Omaha, employee

Marla J. Norton signed an Acknowledgment Form in which she agreed to submit all

complaints “that arise out of employment or termination of employment” to binding

arbitration. Norton was terminated in August 1994. She filed this action alleging

unlawful sex and age discrimination in violation of Title VII, the ADEA, and state law.

The Hospital moved to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration. The district court granted
The HONORABLE LYLE E. STROM, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Nebraska.

-2-

the unopposed stay, and the arbitrator held a three-day hearing that resulted in an award

in favor of the Hospital. The arbitrator reasoned that Norton “has not carried her burden

of showing that the reasons offered by the Hospital are pretexts for discrimination or

that the Hospital provided false reasons for terminating Ms. Norton.” 

When Norton failed to file a motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award within the

three months allowed under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 12, the district

court granted the Hospital’s motion to dismiss her complaint, concluding that by

1

voluntarily participating in the arbitration Norton “has either consented to arbitration or

waived her right to object on the grounds that the arbitration agreement is not valid. She

is bound by the arbitrator’s award by not filing a timely motion to vacate.” Norton

appeals, arguing that the Acknowledgment Form was not a binding agreement to

arbitrate, the agreement to arbitrate was an unenforceable contract of adhesion, the

waiver of her statutory rights did not comply with the ADEA’s disclosure and waiting

period limitations, and she did not waive her right to a jury trial by agreeing to arbitrate.

After careful consideration of these contentions, we agree with the district court that

Norton waived her right to pursue her claims in the lawsuit by failing to oppose the

motion to stay, participating in the arbitration, and failing to file a timely petition or

motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award. See Comprehensive Acct’g Corp. v. Rudell,

760 F.2d 138 (7th Cir. 1985); see generally Patterson v. Tenet Healthcare, Inc., 113

F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
DIRTY, STAINED OR SMEARED 

Table IV, not a defect. Typical of many well made cans. Note 

chalky spots on side seam and rosin stains along solder.
fAA·- 2D 10- £;'2..73

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date _Response

Regional Airline Dave Lotterer 202· 6/7109 No Objection

Association 367-1252

Bombardier Aaron Tsang 416- 6/7/09 No Objection

373-5436

Transport Canada Anthony Wan 6/7/09 No Objection

J
No. 11-6456.

#### Jimmy Lee Naslund, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1117, 132 S. Ct. 1004,

181 L. Ed. 2d 745,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 195.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 09-8570.

#### Richard Eugene Dunson, Petitioner v. Minnesota.

559 U.S. 1012, 130 S. Ct. 1891,

176 L. Ed. 2d 374,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2590.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 770 N.W.2d 546.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7221

ISMAEL R. CRUZ,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL MCCALL,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(8:13-cv-00658-DCN)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ismael R. Cruz seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Cruz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 11-6179.

#### Waylon McDonald, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 956, 132 S. Ct. 432,

181 L. Ed. 2d 281,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7216.

October 11, 2011.

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

Same case below, 431 Fed. Appx. 282.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000835928
<NAME> AP HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          19,183
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,743)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,628
<PP&E>                                          73,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,889
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,747
<BONDS>                                        191,666
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     28,364
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (87,385)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,657
<SALES>                                        195,517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               195,517
<CGS>                                          155,230
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  155,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,991
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,541
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,732)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       430
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,162)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,816)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,978)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUG 13, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1229 9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, f.k.a . Cin gu la r W ire le ss LLC, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us NA TI ON AL AS SO CIA TI ONFO R STOCK CAR AUTO RACING, INC., D ef en dant- Appe llant, SPRI NT NEXT EL CORPORATION, In te rv en or -Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _
O R D E R : Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, CA RN E S an d F A Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

T he part ie s are he re by

a dvi se d th at

the c ourt i s is sui ng i ts o pin ionin thi s ex p ed i t ed ca s e t o d ay. An y p et i t i o n s fo r r eh ea ri n g s h al l b e f i l ed i n t h e c l er k ’s of fi ce no l at er

tha n f ive day s f ro m tod ay . T he part ie s are r em ind ed that un de r the pr ovi sio ns o f E le ve nthCi rc uit Ru le 35- 3 e nti tle d “ E xtr ao rd inary N at ur e of Petitions for En Banc Consideration”:

A lle ge d e rr or s inapane l’ s de te rm ina tio n of sta te law. . . a re m atte rs f or r eh eari ng be fo re the pane l bu t no t f or e n banc co nsi de ratio n. Pl eas e g ov ern y ou rs el ve s ac co rd in gl y . The c ourt will continue to exp edite its consid eration of this case.
No. 09-7425.

#### Jonathan McGriggs, Petitioner v. Mississippi.

559 U.S. 965, 130 S. Ct. 1574,

176 L. Ed. 2d 157,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1091.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 558 U.S. 1097, 130 S. Ct. 1026, 175 L. Ed. 2d 628, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 9030.