alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Axcess International, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly 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)) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined Exchange Act
Rules 13-15(f) and 15d-(f)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidating
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report was prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report (the
Evaluation Date); andc)
    
    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 6.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our
most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.
  /s/ ALLAN L. FRANKAllan L. Frank, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
Daniel T. MILLER, et al., petitioners, v. Chad WRIGHT, et al.

No. 12-1237.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1298]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER95-218-000]


Koch Power Services, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

January 13, 1995.
    On November 25, 1994, Koch Power Services, Inc. (Koch) submitted 
for filing a rate schedule under which Koch will engage in wholesale 
electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. Koch also 
requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Koch 
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability 
by Koch.
    On January 4, 1995, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, granted 
requests for blanket approval under Part 34 subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Koch 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 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Koch is authorized 
to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a 
guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of 
another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some 
lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the corporate purposes of the applicant, and compatible 
with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate 
for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Koch's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is February 3, 1995.
    Copies of the full text of the order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 3308, 941 North Capitol 
Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-1298 Filed 1-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

JOHN BAKER, )

 Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:13-CV-5-TLS-PRC 

)

WILSON 5 SERVICE COMPANY, INC., )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Stay All Proceedings

Pending Resolution of New Administrative Charges for Discrimination and Retaliation and to

Amend the Scheduling Order [DE 25], filed by Plaintiff John Baker on April 8, 2014. 

Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination against Defendant Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc.

on September 25, 2012. On October 19, 2012 or October 22, 2012, Plaintiff received his right to sue

letter. Plaintiff then filed a Complaint with this Court on January 3, 2013, alleging claims under the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. On April 7, 2014,

Plaintiff filed new charges with the EEOC, alleging a continuing violation of the ADEA and ADA

and retaliation. The new charges involve the same employer and allegedly the same questions of law

and fact as the present case.

In the instant unopposed motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to stay these proceedings, arguing

that judicial economy strongly favors a stay in this action pending exhaustion of Plaintiff’s

administrative remedies before the EEOC, the Illinois Division of Human Rights, and the OFCCP

because the new charges involve the same employer as well as the same questions of law and fact

as the present case and because the new charges raise the issue of a continuing violation. When a

plaintiff has filed subsequent charges with the EEOC based on the same questions of law and fact
against the same employer, the plaintiff may seek to stay the pending litigation pending resolution

of the charges to allow all the claims to go forward in one action. See Czarniecki v. City of Chicago,

633 F.3d 545, 550 (7th Cir. 2011); Spencer v. Thomas, No. 01 C 7783, 2002 WL 31375499 (N.D.

Ill. Oct. 21, 2002) (citing Herrmann v. Cencom Cable Assocs., Inc., 999 F.2d 223, 225 (7th Cir.

1993); Bethea v. Ill. State Police, No 01 CV 9518, 2002 WL 1592774, at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. July 19,

2002); also citing Brzostowski v. Laidlaw Waste Sys., Inc., 49 F.3d 337, 339 (7th Cir. 1995)).

Having considered the motion, finding it well taken, and noting Defendant’s lack of

opposition, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Stay All Proceedings

Pending Resolution of New Administrative Charges for Discrimination and Retaliation and to

Amend the Scheduling Order [DE 25] and ORDERS that this matter is STAYED through and

including October 14, 2014. The Court ORDERS the parties to FILE a status report on or before 

October 17, 2014. The Court VACATES the April 25, 2014 dispositive motion deadline.

SO ORDERED this 14th day of April, 2014.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record

2
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

MICHELLE LEAL, et al. ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, )

) 

 v. ) CASE No.: 2:13 CV 318 

 ) 

TSA STORES, INC. d/b/a THE SPORTS ) 

AUTHORITY, URBAN EXPRESS ) 

ASSEMBLY, LLC, EAST COAST ) 

SUPPLY, INC., YONG QI BICYCLE ) 

INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD, GO ) 

CONFIGURE, INC., GUHLAM ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendant, Go Configure, Inc.’s “Motion to Dismiss” filed on 

October 22, 2014. Plaintiff did not file a response. In its Motion, Go Configure asserts that 

Plaintiff’s claim in her Second Amended Complaint is time-barred. 

In anticipation of an upcoming conference with Magistrate Judge Cherry, the undersigned 

held a conference on December 15, 2014 to discuss the status of this unopposed motion to 

dismiss as well as the other motions pending in the case. At that conference, Plaintiff’s counsel 

represented that he had no objection to the Court’s granting of the motion to dismiss so long as 

the dismissal was without prejudice. Go Configure’s counsel sought a dismissal with prejudice. 

Mindful of the standards of review for motions to dismiss, the Court concludes the 

Motion to Dismiss is well-taken. Even assuming that the facts as plead in Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint are true, her claims against Go Configure are barred by the applicable two 

year statute of limitations. And, because Go Configure is a wholly new defendant in this action, 
2 

the allegations against Go Configure do not “relate back” to the date the original Complaint was 

filed so as to permit the claim to fall within the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, 

Go Configure, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 85] is GRANTED without prejudice.1

Entered: This 17th day of December, 2014. 

s/ William C. Lee 

United States District Court 

 

1 Unless otherwise stated, dismissals pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) are deemed to be with prejudice. See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Harmon v. Gordon, 712 F.3d 1044, 1054 -1055 (7th Cir. 2013). However, the 

Seventh Circuit disfavors granting dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) on grounds of untimeliness without 

leaving open the possibility for the Plaintiff to amend if other facts would come to light that cure the 

timeliness issue. Smith v. Union Pacific R. Co. 474 Fed.Appx. 478, 481, 2012 WL 1130279, 3 (7th Cir. 

2012).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12595]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 742]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Merck, Sharp & Dohme 
Quimica de Puerto Rico, Inc. (Pharmaceuticals); Barceloneta, Puerto 
Rico

    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment *** of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;

    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;

    Whereas, an application from the Commercial and Farm Credit and 
Development Corporation of Puerto Rico, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 
61, for authority to establish special-purpose subzone status at the 
pharmaceutical manufacturing facility of Merck, Sharp & Dohme Quimica 
de Puerto Rico, Inc., in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, was filed by the 
Board on August 30, 1993, and notice inviting public comment was given 
in the Federal Register (FTZ Docket 49-93, 58 FR 47858, 9-13-93); and,

    Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the FTZ Act 
and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the 
application is in the public interest;

    Now, therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a 
subzone (Subzone 61E) at the plant site of Merck, Sharp & Dohme Quimica 
de Puerto Rico, Inc., in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, at the location 
described in the application, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations, including Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of May 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

[FR Doc. 95-12595 Filed 5-22-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David William Leonard, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from three judgments of the County Court, Rockland County (Edelstein, J.), all rendered January 5, 1983, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (three counts), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences as a second felony offender.

Judgments affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, in which defendant voluntarily admitted his prior felony conviction, the sentencing *755court acknowledged and discussed the conviction on the record, and the People filed a second felony offender statement pursuant to CPL 400.21, the fact that the sentencing court failed to inquire of defendant whether he wished to contest the constitutionality of his prior felony conviction, although such inquiry is the preferred practice, does not warrant disturbance of the sentences imposed *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9; *People v Lattmen,*101 AD2d 662; *People v Collins,*100 AD2d 691; *People v Provost,*76 AD2d 944). Additionally, the record indicates that defendant was given an opportunity to make a statement prior to the pronouncement of sentence pursuant to CPL 380.50, contrary to his contention on appeal. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         115,282
<SECURITIES>                                       600
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,986
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               159,868
<PP&E>                                       4,001,642
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,650,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,511,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,505
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,498,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,511,081
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               235,327
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,453
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                183,874
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            183,874
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   183,874
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    20.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    20.80
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27592-27593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12663]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
[FRA Docket Nos. PB-95-1 and SA-95-2]


MK Rail Corporation (MKRC) and CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT)

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Change of hearing date.

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

SUMMARY: On May 5, 1995, FRA published in the Federal Register a Notice 
of Petition for Waivers or Compliance (60 FR 22427) regarding the 
future operations of a train known as the ``Iron Highway.'' FRA 
scheduled a public hearing for May 25, 1995. Due to scheduling 
constraints, FRA must change the date of the public hearing. As a 
consequence, FRA is rescheduling the public hearing to June 29, 1995, 
in room 4436 of the Nassif Building, DOT Headquarters Building, 400 
Seventh [[Page 27593]] Street SW., Washington, DC. We apologize for any 
inconvenience this rescheduling may cause.

DATES: A public hearing will be held at 10 a.m. on June 29, 1995.

ADDRESSES: A public hearing will be held in room 4436 of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harold Morick, Motive Power & 
Equipment Division, Office of Safety, FRA, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-4094), or Mark Tessler, Trial 
Attorney, Office of Chief Council, FRA, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-366-0628).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 1995.
E.R. English,
Director, Office of Safety Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 95-12663 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of YDI
Wireless, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
each of the undersigned Robert E. Fitzgerald, Chief Executive Officer, and
Patrick L. Milton, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of the Company
certifies, to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (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
Company.


/s/ Robert E. Fitzgerald               /s/ Patrick L. Milton
----------------------------------     -----------------------------------------
Robert E. Fitzgerald                   Patrick L. Milton
Chief Executive Officer                Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

Date:  March 25, 2004                 Date:  March 25, 2004
Raschid ZIMMERMAN, petitioner, v. Willie SMITH, Warden.

No. 13-6207.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 1 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 2 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 3 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 4 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 5 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 6 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 7 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 8 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 9 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 10 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 11 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 12 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 13 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 14 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 15 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 16 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 17 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 18 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-31   filed 07/14/15   page 19 of 19