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

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Matthew T. Gibbs II, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, 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 quarterly 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 officers 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 we 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 officers 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 function):

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 15, 2006
|                   | 
|By:                |  | /s/ Matthew T. Gibbs II             
|                   |  | Matthew T. Gibbs II                 
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer and Director
**Exhibit
32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 The
undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of
title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her capacity as an officer of Pacific
Coast National Bancorp, that, to his or her knowledge, the Annual Report of
Pacific Coast National Bancorp on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of Pacific Coast National Bancorp. This written statement is being
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form
10-QSB. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Pacific Coast
National Bancorp and will be retained by Pacific Coast National Bancorp and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
  **Date:
May 13, 2005**
  
 **/s/
Colin M. Forkner**
 **Colin
M. Forkner**
 **Chief
Executive Officer**
 
 
 **/s/
Terry Stalk**
 **Terry
Stalk**
 **Chief
Financial Officer**
# C_2017269EN.01001302.xml

| 14.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/13

---

Action brought on 23 June 2017 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-377/17)

(2017/C 269/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, H. Tserepa-Lacombe and L. Malferrari, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, in so far as it has maintained compulsory fees for architects and engineers under the HOAI (Fee Ordinance for Architects and Engineers), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1), 15(2)(g) and 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC and under Article 49 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, in so far as it has maintained compulsory fees for architects and engineers under the HOAI (Fee Ordinance for Architects and Engineers), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1), 15(2)(g) and 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC and under Article 49 TFEU;

| 2. | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The German Fee Ordinance for Architects and Engineers (Honorarordnung für Architekten und Ingenieure — ‘HOAI’) contains a system of minimum and maximum prices for the services of that group of professionals. That system makes it more difficult for architects and engineers who wish to compete with established providers by way of offers outside the permitted price range to become established. Those providers, it is submitted, are prevented in that regard from providing services of the same quality at lower prices and from providing services of a higher quality at higher prices.

This constitutes a restriction of the freedom of establishment for the purposes of both Article 15(1), 15(2)(g) and 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC and Article 49 TFEU.

That restriction is not justified; in particular it is not justified by the interest of safeguarding the quality of services, which is not directly linked to the price.

---
T.R.S. v. STATE

CR-16-0791

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017 Reh. denied October 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Keith Demond ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3522

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 16, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kevin P. Steiger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Because the jury found that the appellant committed multiple firearm offenses without discharging the firearm during a single criminal episode, the trial court erred in imposing consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. *See**Walton v. State* , 208 So.3d 60, 64 (Fla. 2016) (quoting *Williams v. State* , 186 So.3d 989, 993 (Fla. 2016) ("[C]onsecutive sentencing of mandatory minimum imprisonment terms for multiple firearm offenses is impermissible if the offenses arose from the same criminal episode and a firearm was merely possessed but not discharged.") ). Accordingly, we reverse the appellant's sentence on count V and remand the case to the trial court for it to order the appellant's sentence on count V to run concurrently to the sentences for counts IV and VI. We reject the appellant's separate argument that he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

Roberts, Ray, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
##### 



EXHIBIT
31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT
TO RULE 13A-14(A) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT, AS AMENDED
      (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
  (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.
  /s/ Randall H. BrownRandall H. Brown, Chief Financial Officer
Jason CASTLE v. Mary CASTLE

2017-CT-00213-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: January 16, 2019 Closed: April 4, 2019

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
# C_2017112EN.01002501.xml

| 10.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Koppers Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-49/17)

(2017/C 112/35)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Koppers Denmark ApS

Applicant:

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| ‘1. | Is Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that the consumption of self-produced energy products for the production of other energy products is tax exempt in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the energy products produced are not used as motor fuels or as heating fuels? |
| --- | --- |

‘1.

Is Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that the consumption of self-produced energy products for the production of other energy products is tax exempt in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the energy products produced are not used as motor fuels or as heating fuels?

1

| 2. | Is Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may restrict the scope of the exemption so as to cover only consumption of an energy product used in the production of an equivalent energy product (i.e. an energy product which, like the energy product consumed, is also subject to tax)?’ |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may restrict the scope of the exemption so as to cover only consumption of an energy product used in the production of an equivalent energy product (i.e. an energy product which, like the energy product consumed, is also subject to tax)?’

---

(1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (Text with EEA relevance).

1

OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Bennet Price-Lientz Tchaikovsky, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Innovative Card
Technologies, 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 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: November 22, 2005          By: /s/ Bennet Price-Lientz Tchaikovsky
                                 --------------------------------
                                 Bennet Price-Lientz Tchaikovsky
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Wallace C. JONES, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2578

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 23, 2019

Wallace C. Jones, Jr., in proper person.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to Rule 9.141(b), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we treat Wallace Jones' petition for writ of certiorari as an appeal taken from an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Finding no error in the trial court's determination, we affirm.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 15 (Friday, January 24, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 8152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01695]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Pistoia Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 15, 2024, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (the ``Act''), Pistoia Alliance, Inc. 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Data Vid, Limited, 
London, UNITED KINGDOM; DeltaSoft, Inc., Hillsborough, NJ; Limoges 
Consulting, Basel, SWITZERLAND; Altair Engineering, Inc., Troy, MI; and 
bPrescient, Inc., Newton, MA have joined as parties to this venture.
    Also, Eccenca, GmbH, Leipzig, GERMANY; Elucidata Corporation, 
Cambridge, MA; and TopQuadrant Inc., Raleigh, NC have withdrawn as 
parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to 
file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009 (74 FR 34364).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 21, 
2024. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal 
Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on October 11, 2024 (89 FR 
82634).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2025-01695 Filed 1-23-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
Revised 02/9/24

OFFICE OF THE BUREAU CHIEF

Holly Saurer, Chief

Hillary DeNigro, Deputy Chief

Rosemary Harold, Deputy Chief

Lori Maarbjerg, Deputy Chief

Thomas Horan, Chief of Staff

Nancy Murphy, Associate Bureau Chief 

Evan Morris, Associate Bureau Chief

Sima Nilsson, Legal Advisor

Jeffrey Neumann, Chief Engineer

Vacant, Director of Media Relations

MANAGEMENT & RESOURCES STAFF

India Malcolm, Assistant Chief for Management

POLICY DIVISION

Maria Mullarkey, Division Chief

Steven Broeckaert, Senior Deputy Division Chief

Brendan Murray, Deputy Division Chief

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS DIVISION

Radhika Karmarkar, Chief

Christopher Sova, Deputy Division Chief

AUDIO DIVISION

Albert Shuldiner, Chief

James Bradshaw, Senior Deputy Division Chief

Tom Hutton, Deputy Division Chief (Law)

Lisa Scanlan, Deputy Division Chief

VIDEO DIVISION

Barbara Kreisman, Chief

David Brown, Deputy Division Chief

Kevin Harding, Deputy Division Chief
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.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States.

# ACTION:

Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules; notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules will hold an in-person meeting in hybrid format with remote attendance options on April 2, 2025 in Atlanta, GA. The meeting is open to the public for observation but not participation. Please see the                         **Supplementary Information**                         section in this notice for instructions on observing the meeting.                    

# DATES:

April 2, 2025 (meeting date) and March 26, 2025 (registration deadline for in-person observation).

# ADDRESSES:

                        An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:                         *https://www.uscourts.gov/​forms-rules/​records-rules-committees/​agenda-books.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Shelly Cox, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,                         *RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

To observe the meeting in person, individuals must contact the office listed above by 5 p.m. (eastern time) on March 26, 2025. After this deadline, only remote observation is permitted. Remote registration is available until the meeting date, provided it is completed before the projected end time.

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

Dated: January 21, 2025.

Shelly L. Cox,

Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.

[FR Doc. 2025-01709 Filed 1-23-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BILL HOUDA, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-1418-D

VS. §

 §

JUPITER CHEVROLET, §

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the

November 9, 2006 findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the magistrate judge, the court

concludes that the conclusions are correct. It is therefore ordered that the conclusions and

recommendation of the magistrate judge are adopted, and defendant Jupiter Chevrolet’s May 5, 2006

motion for summary judgment is denied.

SO ORDERED.

December 7, 2006.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01418-D Document 37 Filed 12/07/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 195
Anniina Suominen GUYAS, Former Wife, Appellant, v. Paul GUYAS, Former Husband, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1027

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 3, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.