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

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Ken La Honta, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Design Within Reach, 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 misleadingwith 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 thisreport; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible 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 underour 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’sdisclosure 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 internalcontrol 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 materiallyaffect, 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’sboard 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 andreport financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 16, 2005
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 770 

Expressing support for the designation of July 2024 as ‘‘Disability Pride 

Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 24, 2024 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. TILLIS) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of July 2024 as 

‘‘Disability Pride Month’’. 

Whereas, according to the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, an estimated 61,000,000 adults in the United 

States have a disability; 

Whereas the United States Census Bureau reports that more 

than 3,000,000 children in the United States have a disability; 

Whereas the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 

U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) was signed into law on July 26, 

1990; 

Whereas individuals with disabilities remain at an increased 

risk of experiencing discrimination and social isolation; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•SRES 770 ATS 

Whereas individuals with disabilities are vital and make 

meaningful contributions to the workforce, arts, science, 

health care, technology, sports, education, law, and many 

more sectors; and 

Whereas ‘‘Disability Pride Month’’ is celebrated in July by 

people across the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) expresses support for the designation of 

3 July 2024 as ‘‘Disability Pride Month’’; and 

4 (2) calls on the people of the United States, in5 terest groups, and affected people to observe ‘‘Dis6 ability Pride Month’’ with appropriate celebrations 

7 and activities. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MYRON M. COWHER, II,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 158 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of July, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Patrick BOWLING, et al. v. CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al.

NO. 2018-C-2117

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

Denied.
# C_2020279EN.01002601.xml

| 24.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 May 2020 — DocMorris NV v Apothekerkammer Nordrhein

(Case C-190/20)

(2020/C 279/36)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: DocMorris NV

Respondent: Apothekerkammer Nordrhein

Question referred

Is it compatible with the provisions of Title VIII and, in particular, with Article 87(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) if a national provision (in this case the first sentence of Paragraph 7(1) of the Gesetz über die Werbung auf dem Gebiete des Heilwesens (Law on Advertising in the Field of Medicine’)) is interpreted as prohibiting a mail-order pharmacy established in another Member State from using a prize competition to attract customers if participation in the prize competition is linked to the submission of a prescription for a medicinal product for human use subject to a medical prescription, the prize offered is not a medicinal product but another object (in this case an electric bike worth EUR 2 500 and electric toothbrushes), and there is no risk that irrational and excessive use of that medicinal product is encouraged?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

---
Exhibit 99(c)


                          Certificate as to Compliance
                          ----------------------------


         I, Steven H. Smith, Servicing Officer of Household Finance Corporation
(the "Master Servicer"), DO HEREBY CERTIFY, in accordance with Section 4.10 of
the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2000 among Household
Automotive Trust V, as Issuer, Household Auto Receivables Corporation, as
Seller, the Master Servicer and the Trust and Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota,
National Association (Successor to Norwest Bank Minnesota, National
Association), as Trustee (the "Master Sale and Servicing Agreement"), that:

         1.   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer from January 1
         through December 31, 2002 (the "Year") and of its performance under the
         Master Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision;
         and

         2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Master
         Servicer has fulfilled all of its material obligations under the Master
         Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout the Year.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate this 31st day of March, 2003.



                                       /s/ STEVEN H. SMITH
                                       -------------------
                                       Steven H. Smith
                                       Servicing Officer
# C_2021452EN.01003101.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/31

---

Judgment of the General Court 15 September 2021 — Numbi v Council

(Case T-109/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Proof that inclusion and retention on the lists is well founded - Manifest error of assessment - Continuation of the factual and legal circumstances which led to the adoption of the restrictive measures - Right to private and family life - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality - Plea of illegality)

(2021/C 452/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-C. Cadilhac and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 134), and, second, Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2019 L 318, p. 1) in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr John Numbi to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr John Numbi to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.

---
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000076

30-JUN-2015

08:05 AM
# C_2021462EN.01004102.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — Moviescreens Rental v EUIPO — the airscreen company (AIRSCREEN)

(Case T-250/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark airscreen - Absolute grounds for refusal - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2021/C 462/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany) (represented by: D. Schulz and P. Stelzig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Manea and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 (Case R 2527/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Moviescreens Rental and the airscreen company.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Moviescreens Rental GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Moviescreens Rental GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

---
Lloyd T. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3383

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 21, 2019]

Affirmed.
BTXN 112 (rev. 10/02)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

In Re: §

§

§

§

Ian Van Reenen 

Brianne Elaine Van Reenen 

 Case No.: 24−50120−rlj7

 Chapter No.: 7

Debtor(s)

ORDER APPROVING TRUSTEE REPORT AND DISCHARGING TRUSTEE

 The Trustee appointed in the above listed case has filed the Trustee's Report. It is, therefore

 ORDERED that the trustee be discharged.

DATED: 9/11/24 FOR THE COURT:

Stephen J Manz, Clerk of Court

Case 24-50120-rlj7 Doc 17 Filed 09/11/24 Entered 09/11/24 23:15:08 Desc Order

Approving Trustee Report Page 1 of 1
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 5 

Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of a President pro 

tempore. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 3, 2023 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Notifying the House of Representatives of the election of 

a President pro tempore. 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives be noti2 fied of the election of the Honorable Patty Murray as 

3 President of the Senate pro tempore. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK125TN23PROD with BILLS
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LYDIA B ULTEM EYER , on be ha lf of he rse lf a nd a ll othe rs sim ila

rly situa te d, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C ENTUR YLINK INC ., De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 17-15858 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-02530-SPL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ste ve n Pa ul Loga n , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d April 18, 2019 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, B EA, a

nd N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Linda B u l te m e y e r a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing he r Fa ir C re dit R e porting Ac t (FC R A ) c la im , 15 U.S.C . § 1681b(f), a ga inst C e ntury Link, Inc
. W e h ave jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we re v e rse . 

# FIL ED DEC 23 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).1. The distric t c ourt e rre d in c onc l uding tha t B ulte m e y e r fa i le d to a lle ge a
c onc re te injury

suffic ie nt to sa

tisfy Artic le III’ s sta

nding re q uire m e nt. Se c tion 1681b(f)(1) “prote c ts the c onsum e r’ s substantive priva c y inte re st” by

prohibiting third pa rtie s from “ o bta ining a

c re dit re port for a

purpose not othe rwise
a uthoriz e d.” N

ay ab v . C a pital One Bank

(USA), N .A. , 942 F.3d 480, 490 (9th C i r. 2019). B e c a

u se “ e ve ry

viola tion of § 1681b(f)(1) ‘ offe nds the inte re st tha t the sta tute prote c ts,’ ” a pla intiff “ ha s sta nding to vindic ate he r right to priva c y unde r the FC R A whe n a third-pa

rty obta ins he r c re dit re port without a purpose
a uthoriz e d by

the sta t ute , re ga rdle ss whe t

he r the c re dit re port is publishe d or othe rwise use d by

tha t third-pa rty .” Id. at 490, 493 (quoting Eic he nbe rge r v . ESPN , Inc
. , 876 F.3d 979, 983–84 (9th C ir. 2017)). The re fore , B u lte m e y e r’ s a lle gation that C e ntury Link obtaine d he r c re dit re port without the re quire d a

uthoriz ation is suffic i e nt to c onfe r Artic le III sta nding. 2. W e de c line to e xe rc ise our disc re tion to gra nt sum m ary judgm e nt to e ithe r pa rty in this c a s e , a s “ [w] e have re pe ate dly de c line d to e xe rc ise suc h disc re tion . . .

‘ w he re . . . the fina l orde r in the c a se wa s a dism i ssa l for la c k of subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion.’ ” Gruv e r v . Le sman Fishe rie

s Inc
. , 489 F.3d 978, 981 n.4 (9th C ir. 2007) (c ita

tion omitte d). RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.
2
STATE EX REL. Nathaniel PAYTON v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-1893

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 6, 2019

Not considered. See La.S.Ct.R. IX, § 6.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 27, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 540 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-843, K2025-844.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30805 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
1530.

#### SOUTHERN STATES PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY *v.*HELMS.

The motion for a new trial rests solely on the ground that there is no evidence to support the verdict. An inspection of the record discloses that this contention is not well taken.

Action for damages, from city court of Polk county — Judge Irwin. November 3, 1908.

Argued January 27, —

Decided May 4, 1909.

*J. L. Tison,*for plaintiff in error.

*Janes & Hutchens,*contra.

Powell, J.

This ease previously came to this court on demurrer, and we held that the petition set out a cause of action. *Southern States Portland Cement Co.*v. *Helms,*2 *Ga. App.*308 (58 S. E. 524). The case then proceeded to trial and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The case comes here again on exceptions to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a nonsuit, and to the overruling of a motion for a new trial, based on the general grounds alone. It is never necessary to pass upon a refusal to grant a nonsuit where the record contains the exception that the verdict is without evidence to support it, since the latter exception raises the whole question more adequately than an exception to the overruling of a motion for nonsuit would present it. Even if the motion for nonsuit was well taken at the time it was made, and was therefore improperly overruled, yet if the subsequent testimony cured the deficiency in the plaintiff’s proof, the judgment would not be reversed because the court refused to grant the nonsuit at the time the motion was made. On the other hand, if the subsequent testimony did not cure the deficiency, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff would be without evidence to support it, and would be set aside on that ground. So there is never any need to except to the refusal of a nonsuit where the case has resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant has excepted to the verdict on the ground that it is without evidence to support it.

The evidence in this case is conflicting as to almost every material question of fact, but, construing it most favorably to the plaintiff, it will support the verdict. This court has no power to interfere with the action of the jury and of the trial judge upon the mere question of fact involved. , *Judgment affirmed.*
1

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ANGEL RAMOS,

Appellant, 

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00263-CR

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20060D05748)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Angel Ramos is attempting to appeal two judgments of conviction. We dismiss for want of 

jurisdiction. 

In a criminal case, a notice of appeal must be filed (1) within 30 days after the day sentence 

is imposed or suspended in open court or (2) within 90 days after the day sentence is imposed or 

suspended in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.2(a).

The appellate court may extend the time to file the notice of appeal if it receives a motion for an 

extension of time within 15 days of the notice of appeal due date. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3.

Here, both judgments of conviction in this case show that the trial court sentenced Ramos 

on March 11, 2011. Ramos’ notice of appeal and motion for extension of time to file the notice of 

appeal, filed October 21, 2019, are untimely. We are without jurisdiction to hear Ramos’ appeal.
2

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

December 5, 2019

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6308

ERNEST DWIGHT PERRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(5:10-cv-02346-TMC)

Submitted: June 19, 2012 Decided: August 7, 2012

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ernest Dwight Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Dwight Perry seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Perry 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
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED