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


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT, AS AMENDED,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Marc Smernoff, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Americold Realty Trust;


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 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) [omitted pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-15(a)];


(c) 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


(d) 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 (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 29, 2018





/s/ Marc SmernoffMarc SmernoffChief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President
Shakoy GALE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-5504

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 6, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

WASH1NGTON, D.C. 20590

June 11,2013

The Honorable Max Baucus

United States Senate

Washington DC 20510

Dear Senator Baucus:

Thank you for your support of the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. We understand and

appreciate the importance of air service to small and rural communities across the country,

including those in Montana.

As you know, we recently issued an order terminating the eligibility of Lewistown and Miles

City. Thiswas consistent with the requirement of 49 U.S.c. Section 41731 (a)(1 )(C) that to

remain eligible to participate in the EAS program, communities must have had an average

subsidy per passenger of less than $] ,000 during the most recent fiscal year.

Your office has raised the question of whether these two communities can apply for

reinstatement in the EAS program. As a procedural matter, the communities can file a Petition

for Reconsideration under 14 C.F.R. Part 302.14 or a motion under 14 C.F.R. Part 302.11

seeking whatever relief they deem appropriate. The Department would consider any arguments

that are made in support of such a petition or motion. Of course. any decision reached by the

Department would need to be consistent with the provisions of the statute.

. ., Sincerely yours, {

,t c

ill :

j ~~.

.$

; "'~

,~

\

r

/'

~

. ". . c

\t.l
Order entered August 28, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00494-CR

RONNIE DILLARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court of Appeals No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MB12-63717-M

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 930 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 930

 Condemning the Cable News Network (CNN) for utilizing images from an 
imbedded photojournalist with prior knowledge of the October 7th attack 
                               on Israel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2023

Mr. Wilson of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. Allen) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Condemning the Cable News Network (CNN) for utilizing images from an 
imbedded photojournalist with prior knowledge of the October 7th attack 
                               on Israel.

Whereas the New York Post article titled ``Netanyahu slams Hamas-linked journos 
        used by CNN, NYT, Reuters and AP who were at Oct. 7 massacre'' by Olivia 
        Land and Megan Palin published on November 9th, 2023, exposed the 
        imbedded photojournalist;
Whereas Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu accused the photojournalists 
        of being ``accomplices in crimes against humanity''; and
Whereas the October 7th massacre in Israel by the Iranian puppet terrorist group 
        Hamas slaughtered innocent civilians including the targeting of women 
        and children including those of American nationality: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) condemns the use of images captured by photojournalists 
        with advance knowledge of the October 7th attack against 
        Israel; and
            (2) reaffirms that the House stands against complicity in 
        attacks against civilians.
                                 <all>
```
Kaitlin Judith KOVECSES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2635

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
John M. BENNETT and Nancy L. Bennett, Appellants, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Home Loan Alliance, LLC f/k/a Leverage Financial, LLC d/b/a LF Loans, Jamal M. Wilson, and GTE Federal Credit Union, Appellees.

No. 3D17-1254

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

January 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 10265]

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Benjamin W. Medina, Office of International Religious Freedom, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, (Phone: (202) 647 3865 or Email:                         *MedinaBW@state.gov*).                    

Daniel L. Nadel,

Director, Office of International Religious Freedom, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2018-00333 Filed 1-10-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-18-P
Michael William BOND, Appellant, v. Lauren Beth BOND, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2312

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 2, 2018

Michael W. Bond, pro se.

Linda Fried of Fried & Fried, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*933Michael Bond, the husband, appeals the circuit court's order awarding Lauren Bond, the wife, temporary appellate attorney's fees. We have jurisdiction. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii). The wife concedes error in light of our prior decision in *Bond v. Bond*, 224 So.3d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). We accept the wife's concession of error, reverse the order awarding temporary appellate attorney's fees, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

CASANUEVA, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 108 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 108

To require a guidance clarity statement on certain agency guidance, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2023

Mr. Lankford (for himself, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Risch, and Mr. 
Braun) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require a guidance clarity statement on certain agency guidance, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Guidance Clarity Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. GUIDANCE CLARITY STATEMENT REQUIRED.

    (a) Requirement.--Each agency, as defined in section 551 of title 
5, United States Code, shall include a guidance clarity statement as 
described in subsection (b) on any guidance issued by that agency under 
section 553(b)(3)(A) of title 5, United States Code, on and after the 
date that is 30 days after the date on which the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget issues the guidance required under subsection 
(c).
    (b) Guidance Clarity Statement.--A guidance clarity statement 
required under subsection (a) shall--
            (1) be displayed prominently on the first page of the 
        document; and
            (2) include the following: ``The contents of this document 
        do not have the force and effect of law and do not, of 
        themselves, bind the public or the agency. This document is 
        intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding 
        existing requirements under the law or agency policies.''.
    (c) OMB Guidance.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget shall issue guidance to implement this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**245 KA 14-01059** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WAYNE A. PRYCE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA, D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (BRADLEY E. KEEM OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (CHRIS EAGGLESTON OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F. Kocher, J.), rendered October 2, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.56). Defendant’s contention that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered because he did not personally recite the elements of the crime to which he pleaded guilty is actually a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution, and that contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v Loper , 118 AD3d 1394, 1394- 1395, lv denied 25 NY3d 1204; see also People v Rinker , 141 AD3d 1177, 1177, lv denied 28 NY3d 1030). This case does not fall within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement because nothing in the plea colloquy negates an essential element of bail jumping in the second degree, raises a potential defense to that charge, or otherwise casts doubt on defendant’s guilt ( see People v Lopez , 71 NY2d 662, 666-667; People v Brinson , 130 AD3d 1493, 1493, lv denied 26 NY3d 965). In any event, defendant’s contention is without merit. Defendant’s “monosyllabic responses to [County Court’s] questions did not render the plea invalid” ( People v Gordon , 98 AD3d 1230, 1230, lv denied 20 NY3d 932 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Lopez , 118 AD3d at 1395). Further, “ ‘there is no requirement that a defendant personally recite the facts underlying his or her crime[] during the plea colloquy, and, here, [t]he record establishes that defendant**-2- 245 KA 14-01059** 

confirmed the accuracy of [the court’s] recitation of the facts underlying the crime’ ” ( Gordon , 98 AD3d at 1230).

We have considered defendant’s challenge to the severity of the agreed-upon sentence and conclude that it is without merit.

Entered: March 24, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
James Jerome BEAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-2924

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 8, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:04:40 PM 

To: Raymond, Michael; AS_Waiver_Requests; Armstrong, Ashley; Llenza, Charles 

Subject: RE: Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver - Hussmann Bulk Produce Cases 

Auto forwarded by a Rule

Mr. Raymond

We agree that a test temperature of 49 ± 2 Degrees Fahrenheit would be sufficient. This was added to 

the attached waiver.

Thank you,

Ron Shebik

Regulatory Compliance Manager

Hussmann Corporation

12999 St. Charles Rock Road

Bridgeton, MO 63044

314.298.6483

ron_shebik@hussmann.com

From: Raymond, Michael [mailto:Michael.Raymond@ee.doe.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 7:38 AM

To: Shebik, Ronald; AS_Waiver_Requests; Armstrong, Ashley; Llenza, Charles

Subject: RE: Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver - Hussmann Bulk Produce Cases 

Mr. Shebik,

Please modify your petition for waiver and application for interim waiver to include test 

temperatures for each basic model. The equipment should be tested at the closest 

integrated average temperature to the rating temperature which it can achieve in a 

repeatable manner. This could correspond to the lowest thermostat setting or lowest 

temperature at which the equipment is to be operated in the field.

Michael G. Raymond, PhD

Building Technologies Program

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

Room 6053, 950 L'Enfant Plaza 

Washington DC 20585

tel: 202-586-9611

michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov

From: Shebik, Ronald [mailto:ron_shebik@irco.com]

Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 6:14 PM

To: Raymond, Michael; AS_Waiver_Requests; Armstrong, Ashley; Llenza, Charles

Subject: Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver - Hussmann Bulk Produce Cases 

Mr. Raymond, Ms. Armstrong, Mr. Llenza
I have attached the Petition for Waiver and Application for Interim Waiver documents. Please let me 

know if you have any questions or any further action is needed.

Thank you,

Ron Shebik

Regulatory Compliance Manager

Hussmann Corporation

12999 St. Charles Rock Road

Bridgeton, MO 63044

314.298.6483

ron_shebik@hussmann.com

The information contained in this message is privileged and intended only for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative of the 

intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message or the information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this 

message in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and attachments.

The information contained in this message is privileged and intended only for the recipients named. If the reader is not a representative of the 

intended recipient, any review, dissemination or copying of this message or the information it contains is prohibited. If you have received this 

message in error, please immediately notify the sender, and delete the original message and attachments.
|  | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 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/      Darlene M. Deptula-Hicks   . |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Darlene      M. Deptula-Hicks                                           |
|   | Chief      Financial Officer                                            |

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Daleco Resources Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2004 and as amended
February 24, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Dov Amir, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (3) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
             15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (4) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
             material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
             of the Company.


                                                  /s/ Dov Amir
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Dov Amir
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         November 22, 2004
Laura TWOMEY, an individual, Appellant, v. BOCA PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, and FHPM, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Appellees.

No. 4D17-1128

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 21, 2018]

Matthew B. Wasserman, David I. Shiner and Stratton A. Smiley of Shiner Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

Joan Carlos Wizel, Eric L. McAliley and Sandra Ferrin of Lydecker | Diaz, Miami, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed. See**Wolf v. Sam's East, Inc.* , 132 So.3d 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

Taylor, May and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

                            MAXUS REALTY TRUST, INC.

              CERTIFICATION OF 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 the  Quarterly  Report of Maxus  Realty  Trust,  Inc.  (the
"Trust")  on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John W.
Alvey,  Vice  President,  Chief  Financial and Accounting  Officer of the Trust,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (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
Trust as of June 30, 2004 (the last date of the period covered by the Report).


/s/ John W. Alvey
-----------------
John W. Alvey
Vice President
Chief Financial & Accounting Officer
August 13, 2004
---------------