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



EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Alan H. Lund, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of International
Lease Finance Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent 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: February 19, 2004

/S/ Alan H. Lund

ALAN H. LUND
Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer


28
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 17, 2013 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00235-CV 

ANTONIO RENAULD HENDERSON, Appellant 

V. 

VICTRON STORES, LP D/B/A GATEWAY #24 SHELL, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-10-03771-M 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

By letter dated February 19, 2013, the Court directed appellant to pay the $175 filing fee 

within ten days. We warned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismiss of the appeal 

without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). To date, appellant has neither paid the filing 

fee, filed any documentation to show he is entitled to proceed without payment of the fee, nor 

otherwise communicated with the Court regarding the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal. 

130235F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ANTONIO RENAULD HENDERSON, 

Appellant 

No. 05-13-00235-CV V. 

VICTRON STORES, LP D/B/A 

GATEWAY #24 SHELL, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-10-03771-M. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We 

ORDER that appellee Victron Stores, LP d/b/a Gateway #24 Shell recover its costs of this 

appeal, if any, from appellant Antonio Renauld Henderson. 

Judgment entered July 17, 2013 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
**IN THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT**

ORDER

Appellee, Vicki S. Matillo, by counsel, files an "Appellee’s Petition to Transfer."  The opinion of the Court of Appeals is found at *Oxley v. Matillo,* 747 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

In light of this Court’s decision in *Ray-Hayes v. Heinamann,* 760 N.E.2d 172 (Ind. 2002), this Court GRANTS the Petition to Transfer, thereby vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals, *see* Appellate Rule 58(A), and AFFIRMS the trial court’s dismissal of this action.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Done at Indianapolis, Indiana this 22nd day of  February, 2002.

/s/ Randall T. Shepard

Randall T. Shepard

Chief Justice of Indiana 

All Justices concur, except for Dickson, J., who dissents without opinion.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1924 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain transaxles. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2005 

Mr. HULSHOF introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To reduce temporarily the duty on certain transaxles. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN TRANSAXLES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.87.02 Transaxles, incorporating an 

integral electronic controller, 

designed for use in hybrid 

motor vehicles of heading 

8703 (provided for in subheading 8708.40.20) ............ .077% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 1924 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
[No. 36836-2-I.

Division One.

August 25, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Danny Meade Thompson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Island County, No. 94-2-00134-0, Joan H. McPherson, J., entered May 2, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Webster, J., concurred in by Kennedy, A.C.J., and Coleman, J.
#### Cesar Jeronimo GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-71486.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 6, 2011.

Michelle Gonzalez, Esquire, Michelle Gonzalez, Inc., Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.

Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Cesar Jeronimo Gomez, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) and for adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including due process claims, *Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales,*497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ did not use an incorrect legal standard in concluding that Gomez’s conviction under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1) constituted a “violent or dangerous crime” requiring him to meet a heightened hardship standard. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(d); *Tokatly v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir.2004) (the agency may “look to probative evidence outside the record of conviction in inquiring as to the circumstances surrounding the commission of a crime in order to determine whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted”) (alterations and citation *760omitted). We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Gomez’s conviction constituted a violent or dangerous crime. *Mejia v. Gonzales,*499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir.2007).

Gomez’s contention that the IJ violated due process by considering impermissible factors and by disregarding some of his hardship evidence is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# C_2009004EN.01000101.xml

| 9.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5413 — Fujitsu/Fujitsu Siemens Computers)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2009/C 4/01)

On 19 December 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5413. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5413. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
[No. 38638-7-I.

Division One.

August 4, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Augustin Jiminez-Quiroz, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-1-00308-1, Richard M. Ishikawa, J., entered May 6, 1996. *Remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE 

MYRON MOREHOUSE and AMY 

MOREHOUSE, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. CAUSE NO.: 4:16-CV-4-TLS 

FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., ECOA 

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC., and 

ALOCA, INC., 

 Defendants. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court sua sponte. The Court must continuously police its subject 

matter jurisdiction. Hay v. Ind. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 312 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2002). 

The Complaint alleges that the Court’s original subject matter jurisdiction is based on 

diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1.) Diversity jurisdiction 

exists when the parties to an action on each side are citizens of different states, with no defendant 

a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). As the parties seeking to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs 

bear the burden of demonstrating that the jurisdictional requirements have been met. Hertz Corp. 

v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010); Smart v. Local 702 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 562 F.3d 798, 

802–03 (7th Cir. 2009). A failure to meet that burden can result in a dismissal. See Mut. 

Assignment & Indem. Co. v. Lind-Waldock & Co., LLC, 364 F.3d 858, 861 (7th Cir. 2004). In 

this case, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the citizenship of the corporate Defendants and 

that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 
2 

 However, the Complaint alleges that the “Plaintiffs Myron Morehouse and Amy 

Morehouse are husband and wife and are residents of Indiana.” (Compl. ¶ 1). Citizenship of a 

natural person is determined by domicile, not by residence. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 

258 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 

2012) (A[R]esidence may or may not demonstrate citizenship, which depends on domicile—that 

is to say, the state in which a person intends to live over the long run.@); Guar. Nat’l Title Co., 

Inc. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58–59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that statements concerning 

a party’s “residence” are not proper allegations of citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332). 

 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Plaintiffs to FILE, on or before, June 27, 2019, a 

supplemental jurisdictional statement identifying the domicile of Plaintiffs Myron Morehouse 

and Amy Morehouse on January 12, 2016, the date the Complaint was filed. Because this 

supplemental jurisdictional statement must be filed prior to the parties filing their dismissal 

papers, the Court extends the deadline for the parties to file their dismissal papers to July 8, 

2019. 

 SO ORDERED on June 18, 2019. 

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998
<CASH>                                                 183
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      141<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                            709
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,060
<PP&E>                                             134<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                     115<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       1,370
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  803
<BONDS>                                                286
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 1
<OTHER-SE>                                              68
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         1,370
<SALES>                                                503
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       511
<CGS>                                                  404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         65
<INCOME-TAX>                                            24
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     40
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                            40
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .54

<FN>
Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line on the Statement
of Financial Position or Results of Operations are reported as 0 herein.
<F1> Notes and accounts receivable - trade are reported net of allowances for
     doubtful accounts in the Consolidated Balance Sheet.

<F2> Property, plant and equipment are reported net of accumulated
     depreciation in the Consolidated Balance Sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### KI R W A N v. ALEXANDER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department,

April 4, 1912.)

Action by John P. Kirwan against Grace G. Alexander. W. M. Geer, for plaintiff. J. K. M. Ewing, for defendant. No opinion. Exceptions overruled, and judgment ordered, dismissing complaint, with costs. Settle order on notice.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1

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


        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Maxtor Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael R. Cannon, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/ Michael R. Cannon
                                          ---------------------
                                          Michael R. Cannon

                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

                                          August 13, 2002
#### GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. BARTON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 21, 1898.)

Action by Jed H. Griffin against William Barton.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. See 47 N. Y. Supp. 121, and 49 N. Y. Supp. 1021.
Antonio BARBA, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 13-6683.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gordon Tarrant, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Marasco, J.), rendered February 18, 1983, convicting him of attempted *764robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted robbery in the first degree in satisfaction of several pending charges. Prior to imposing sentence, the court erroneously stated that defendant had pleaded guilty to attempted burglary in the first degree. Defendant now contends that his sentence should be vacated and the matter remitted for resentencing. We disagree.

Viewed in context, it is apparent that the court merely misspoke and in fact intended to and did impose sentence for the appropriate crime, attempted robbery in the first degree. All other references are to attempted robbery in the first degree and all papers and documents refer to attempted robbery in the first degree. The sentence imposed, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *IV2 to 4V2*years, was the negotiated term and was, moreover, the minimum sentence possible for both attempted robbery in the first degree and attempted burglary in the first degree. Under the circumstances, a remittitur for what must necessarily be reimposition of the same sentence would serve no purpose whatsoever.

Defendant’s challenge to the plea allocution was not preserved for appellate review (see, *People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Guerra,*99 AD2d 787). In any event, we find no merit to defendant’s contention that the plea should have been rejected as involuntarily or improvidently entered *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1966 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1966

      To suspend temporarily the duty on DEMBB Distilled-ISO Tank.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2005

  Mr. Baker introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on DEMBB Distilled-ISO Tank.

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

SECTION 1. DEMBB DISTILLED--ISO TANK.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following:

``      9902.07.04       DEMBB Distilled    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         which contains                                                     31/2008
                         Pinoxaden
                         Technical -
                         Propanoic acid,
                         2,2-dimethyl-,8-
                         (2,6-diethyl-4-
                         methylphenyl)-1,2
                         ,4,5-tetrahydro-7-
                         oxo-7H-
                         pyrazolo[1,2-
                         d][1,4,5]oxadiaze
                         pin-9-yl ester
                         (CAS No. 314084-
                         61-2) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         2903.69.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```