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



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Stinger
Systems, Inc., for the period ended June 30, 2007;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of 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 that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting;
 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: August 14, 2007
    By:
    /s/ David J. MeadorDavid J. MeadorChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.10
 The 2006 Omnibus Stock and Performance
Incentive Plan of GeoEye, Inc.
 2009 Annual Performance Award Policy
  Target Performance Awards
 Exhibit A
 Revenue and EBITDA Targets
  Performance Award Pool
    
 [***]
    
    Means that certain confidential information has been deleted from this document and filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.




---



##### 



Revenues
    
    EBITDA
    
    Total Bonus Pool Funded% Achievement
    
    % of Bonus
    
    Bonus Pool
    
    % of Bonus
    
    Bonus Poolof Goal
    
    Pool Funded
    
    Funded $
    
    Pool Funded
    
    Funded $
    
    %
    
    $<75
    %
    
    
    0
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    0
    %
    
    $
    [***]75
    %
    
    
    25
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    25
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    50
    %
    
    $
    [***]80
    %
    
    
    30
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    30
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    60
    %
    
    $
    [***]85
    %
    
    
    35
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    35
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    70
    %
    
    $
    [***]90
    %
    
    
    40
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    40
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    80
    %
    
    $
    [***]95
    %
    
    
    45
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    45
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    90
    %
    
    $
    [***]100
    %
    
    
    50
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    50
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    100
    %
    
    $
    [***]105
    %
    
    
    60
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    60
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    120
    %
    
    $
    [***]110
    %
    
    
    70
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    70
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    140
    %
    
    $
    [***]115
    %
    
    
    80
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    80
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    160
    %
    
    $
    [***]120
    %
    
    
    90
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    90
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    180
    %
    
    $
    [***]125
    %
    
    
    100
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    100
    %
    
    $
    [***]
    
    
    
    200
    %
    
    $
    [***]
 Example
  Determination of Performance Awards
  
 [***]
    
    Means that certain confidential information has been deleted from this document and filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
registrant's  financial  statements  as of and for the six  month  period  ended
September  28,  1996 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                         1,185,010
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    3,423,745
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,501,326
<PP&E>                                         4,642,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,919,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,381,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,122,814
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    500,000
<COMMON>                                       201,079
<OTHER-SE>                                     (365,354)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,381,341
<SALES>                                        8,193,870
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,193,870
<CGS>                                          5,303,196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,303,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,771,454
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             36,931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,093,501)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,093,501)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,093,501)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.06)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 34.4**

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the Company) complied withthe servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform (the Platform) as of November 30, 2007, and for the period fromDecember 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007, except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)–(iv), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)–(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i)–(ii), and 1122(d)(4)(iv)–(xiv), which the Company hasdetermined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is toexpress an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, includedexamining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than allof the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions andperformed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Ourprocedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report forthe selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Companycomplied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of November 30, 2007, and for the period from December 1, 2006 through November 30, 2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects. 

 
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
January 28, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 21512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10678]



[[Page 21512]]


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. RP95-248-000]


Overthrust Pipeline Co.; Notice of Tariff Filing

April 26, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 24, 1995, Overthrust Pipeline Company, 
tendered for filing to become part two of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1-A, First Revised Sheet Nos. 48, 49 and 49A, to be 
effective May 4, 1995.
    Overthrust explains that these tariff sheets revise Section 8 of 
the General Terms and Conditions of its tariff to conform with Order 
No. 577 capacity release provisions.
    Overthrust states that this filing complies with Order No. 577 by 
revising the capacity release provisions found in Section 8 of the 
General Terms and Conditions of Part 1 of its tariff by (1) extending 
to one calendar month the exception from the advance posting and 
bidding requirement applicable to released capacity, (2) adding tariff 
language to explain that shippers under this exemption that release 
capacity at a rate less than the maximum rate in the tariff may not re-
release that capacity to the same replacement shipper at a rate less 
than the maximum tariff rate until 28 days after the first release 
period has ended and (3) adding additional tariff language so that 
Overthrust's tariff will comport with Commission Regulations that 
address bidding for pre-arranged releases for a month or less at a rate 
less than the maximum rate.
    Overthrust states further that a copy of this filing has been 
served upon its jurisdictional customers as well as the Utah and 
Wyoming public service commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with Rules 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before May 3, 1995. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-10678 Filed 5-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from National
Property Investors 6 1997 Second Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000708870
<NAME> NATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTORS 6
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,295
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          79,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                  48,939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         34,481
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,663
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,917
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,534
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       383
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.46<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. CR-17-0028-JST

)

Plaintiff, )

)

) STIPULATED MOTION TO 

v. ) AMEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE

) JEHOADDAN WILSON’S MOTION

JEHOADDAN WILSON, ) TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT

) FOR PRE-INDICTMENT DELAY

V. )

)

Defendant. )

______________________________)

The United States and defendant Jehoaddan Wilson, through 

counsel of record, hereby move for an order amending the briefing 

schedule for Wilson’s motion to dismiss the indictment for preindictment delay.

1. The parties have conferred regarding the defendant’s motion 

to dismiss the indictment. The motion is calendared for 

June 14, 2019, the same date as the previously set status 

hearing on this case.

2. The parties have agreed to the following proposed briefing 

schedule, to allow the parties additional time to brief the 

motion than is currently provided by local rule. The 

parties propose that the government file any opposition by 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

May 17, 2019, and the defendant file a reply brief by May 

31, 2019. The set date of June 14, 2019 would be 

unchanged, subject to the Court’s approval.

A proposed order is being submitted with this request.

SO STIPULATED:

DATED: April 19, 2019 /s/ ROBERT DAVID REES

ROBERT DAVID REES

Assistant U.S. Attorney

DATED: April 19, 2019 /s/ John J. Jordan 

John J. Jordan 

Attorney for Defendant

[PROPOSED] ORDER

FOR GOOD CAUSE, the briefing schedule for defendant’s motion to 

dismiss is amended to allow the government to file any opposition by 

May 17, 2019, and the defendant to file a reply brief by May 31, 

2019. The hearing date of June 14, 2019, will remain unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 22, 2019 _____________________________

JUDGE JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

____________________________
Kathleen KIRCH, et vir, petitioners, v. EMBARQ MANAGEMENT COMPANY, et al.

No. 12-1181.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

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

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
John Denver PEGG v. STATE

CR-17-0124

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Leroy Arsenio COPELAND, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-2144

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 10.4


 


Navigation Technologies


 


Deal Request


22-Apr-03


 


 


	
  Transaction

  	
   

  	
  Euro/Dollar
  Basis Swap

  
	
  Navigation Technologies Receives

  	
   

  	
  1 Month US$
  Libor

  
	
  Navigation Technologies Pays

  	
   

  	
  1 Month
  Euribor

  
	
  Begin Date

  	
   

  	
  April 22,
  2003 with the first coupon date of May 24th, 2003 and the 24th
  of each month thereafter

  
	
  Maturity Date

  	
   

  	
  24-Dec-06

  
	
  Reset

  	
   

  	
  Once every
  month

  
	
  Start Exchange

  	
   

  	
  No

  
	
  End Exchange

  	
   

  	
  Yes, an
  amortizing monthly exchange is agreed

  
	
  Spot Level Eur/USD

  	
   

  	
  Market Rate
  less 17 basis points

  
	
  Exact USD Amount

  	
   

  	
  $187,136,045.79

  
	
  Organization

  	
   

  	
  1

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Signature

  	
   

  	
  /s/ David B.
  Mullen

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date

  	
   

  	
  4/22/03

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title

  	
   

  	
  Executive
  Vice President and

  Chief Financial Officer

  



 


1
Benedict KATELY, petitioner, v. Burl CAIN, Warden.

No. 12-9714.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Khiry LINDSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-74

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL SALAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FORKNER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00663-JST (TSH)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 78

Defendant Barneburg claims that six years ago a confidential informant told him that 

Plaintiff Rafael Salas was in possession of a razor blade. ECF No. 25-24, ¶ 7. Defendants argue 

that disclosure of the informant’s identity would jeopardize his safety, as well as the security of 

the institution. ECF No. 25-1 ¶¶ 4, 5. In the joint discovery letter at ECF No. 78, the parties spar 

over the potential consequences of revealing that information. But one of Salas’s arguments 

stands out: “Defendants have not shown—or even asserted—that the alleged informant remains in 

CDCR custody, or that he is housed in the same facility as Plaintiff or any other person who may 

pose a risk. This issue is particularly salient given that the events occurred nearly six years ago 

and Plaintiff has since been transferred to another facility.” ECF No. 78 at 5.

Six years is a long time. People get out of prison. Those still in prison may be somewhere 

else. If the informant and those who might harm him are all still in the same place, that seems to 

present a different situation than, for example, if the informant has been released. There is likely a 

difference in the level of risk to the informant from disclosure in those two situations. There may

also be a difference in the chilling effect that attends deposing somebody who is out of prison 

about information he provided when he was in, versus deposing a current inmate about 

information he provided. Without any information about the current situation, the Court finds it 

Case 4:17-cv-00663-JST Document 86 Filed 05/01/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

hard to weigh the competing interests at issue with the official information privilege or the 

informant privilege. 

Accordingly, the Court orders Defendants to file a declaration within seven days that 

describes the potential risks that would exist today from the disclosure of the informant’s identity 

to Salas’s counsel subject to a protective order prohibiting them from telling that information to 

their client. The declaration must state, in addition to any other pertinent facts, whether the 

informant remains in CDCR custody, and if he does, then whether he is in the same facility as any 

person who may pose a risk. Obviously, that latter piece of information will have to be stated in 

conclusory form to avoid providing a way for Salas to figure out who the informant is.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2020

THOMAS S. HIXSON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-cv-00663-JST Document 86 Filed 05/01/20 Page 2 of 2