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

 

I, David R.Brown, certify that:

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of National Mercantile Bancorp;

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The smallbusiness issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer andhave:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5. The smallbusiness issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thesmall business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’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 asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date:  | August 12,  2005         |   | /s/ DAVID R.  BROWN |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
|   | David R.  Brown          |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
----

Exhibit 10.16 

PERMANENT TECHNOLOGY LICENSE AGREEMENT 

Party A (Licensor):    Mr. Chang Yu 

Party B (Licensee):    Pacific Dragon Fertilizer Co., Ltd 

Based on the PRC Contract Law andfriendly consultation, the Parties reach the following agreement concerning theuse of know-how of Party A by Party B in manufacturing organic liquid compoundfertilizer with the brand name of "Tai Long" ("Proprietary Technology") on aroyalty-free basis: 

1.     Name ofthe Proprietary Technology: manufacturing method and prescription of "Tai Long"organic liquid compound fertilizer. 

2.     Usage:Party A agrees Party B to use the Proprietary Technology in its manufacturingprocess. 

3.     Term ofLicense: Permanent License. 

4.    Obligations of Party A 

a.    Party A shall continue to provide Party B with necessary information andassistance concerning the Proprietary Technology upon the taking effective ofthis Agreement. 

b.     Party Awarrants that the Proprietary Technology is legally owned by Party A and has notbeen used by Party A or any other parties than Party B. 

c.    During the term of this Agreement, Party A shall not use or license a thirdparty to use the Proprietary Technology and Party A shall keep the ProprietaryTechnology in confidential. 

5.     Obligations of Party B 

----

a.     Party Bshall not use the Proprietary Technology for illegal purposes. 

b.     Party Bshall keep the Proprietary Technology in confidential. 

6.    Each party shall be responsible forcompensation of any damages incurred to the other party due to the breach ofthis Agreement by such party. 
7.    Any disputes relating to or arising from thisAgreement shall first be resolved through negotiation. If the parties fail toresolve the disputes through negotiation, each of the parties may bring the lawsuit to the People's Court with jurisdiction. 
8.    This Agreement will takeeffective upon execution by both parties. 
9.    This Agreement will be madetwo copies, each of which shall be held by the parties. Each copy of thisAgreement has the same legal effect. 
Party A: /s/ Yu Chang 

Party B: Pacific Dragon Fertilizer Co., Ltd (Seal) 

Date: December 3, 2005 

 

2
44201626v.1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

CARRIE EVOLGA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MODERN FORGE INDIANA, LLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 2:16-cv-00303-RL-APR 

 Honorable Judge Rudy Lozano 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Carrie Evolga and Defendant 

Modern Forge Indiana, LLC, by their respective attorneys, hereby stipulate and agree 

that this lawsuit should be dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorneys’ 

fees. 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT 

s/ Paul J. Cummings___ s/ Bryan R. Bienias______

David M. Henn Marc Jacobs 

Paul J. Cummings (mjacobs@seyfarth.com) 

HENN HAWORTH CUMMINGS & PAGE Jeffrey K. Ross 

625 North Madison Avenue, Suite A (jross@seyfarth.com) 

Greenwood, IN 46142 Bryan R. Bienias 

Phone: (317) 885-0041 (brbienias@seyfarth.com) 

Fax: (888) 308-6503 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 

E-Mail: David.Henn@HHCFirm.com 233 S. Wacker Dr., Ste. 8000 

Paul.Cummings@HHCFirm.com Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 460-5000 (telephone) 

(312) 460-7000 (facsimile)

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00303-RL document 32 filed 02/06/18 page 1 of 2
44201626v.1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned attorney hereby certify that he caused a true and correct copy 

of the parties’ STIPULATION TO DISMISS to be electronically filed with the Clerk of 

the Court via the Court’s CM/ECF System on February 6, 2018, which will send 

electronic notification of such filing to all counsel of record. 

_____________s/ Bryan R. Bienias ________ 

 Attorney for Defendant 

USDC IN/ND case 2:16-cv-00303-RL document 32 filed 02/06/18 page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 11.1
                                                                 
<TABLE>
        GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
       Computation of Pro Forma Earnings per Common Share
              (In thousands, except per share data)
                           (Unaudited)
<CAPTION>
                                    THREE MONTHS      NINE MONTHS
                                        ENDED            ENDED
                                    SEPTEMBER 30,     SEPTEMBER 30,
                                  ----------------  ----------------
                                   1996      1995     1996     1995
                                  -------  -------  -------  -------
<S>                               <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Net Income                        $17,247   $2,118  $32,606   $9,957
                                  =======  =======  =======   ======
Pro forma, for Recapitalization,                             
average shares issued and                                    
outstanding                        65,403   65,403   65,403   65,403

Exercise of certain stock                                    
options with the Offering           3,950    3,950    3,950    3,950

Incremental shares applicable to                             
stock options outstanding after                              
the exercise of certain stock                                
options with the Offering           4,623    4,623    4,623    4,623

Pro forma, shares issued                                     
pursuant to the Offering            4,559    4,559    4,559    4,559
                                  -------  -------  -------  -------
Pro forma, for Recapitalization                              
and Offering, weighted average                               
number of common and common                                  
equivalent shares                  78,535   78,535   78,535   78,535
                                  =======  =======  =======  =======
Pro forma, for Recapitalization                              
and Offering, net income per                                 
common and common equivalent                                 
share                              $0.22     $0.03    $0.42    $0.13
                                  =======  =======  =======  =======

Note:  Shares and stock options issued subsequent to September
30, 1995 are treated as outstanding for all reported periods.
                                                                 
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

CHANSE T. STARR, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:16 CV 15

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Chanse T. Star, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to

challenge his conviction for Criminal Confinement and the 8 year sentence imposed by

the Allen Superior Court on April 26, 2002,* under cause number 02D04-0201-FD-10.

(DE # 1 at 1.) To obtain habeas corpus relief, a petitioner must be “in custody.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254(a). This requires that the “habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the conviction

or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488,

490-491 (1989). Attached to his petition are two Indiana Department of Correction

documents which were printed on October 29, 2014. Both show that this sentence was

discharged on January 29, 2011. (DE # 1-1 at 10, 11.) Starr argues that he should have

been released sooner, but that is not relevant to the issue here. By the time he filed this

petition, he had already been released from custody on this sentence. 

*

 On his petition Starr wrote the date “4/26/2012.” (DE # 1 at 1.) However, it is clear that is a

scrivener’s error and the correct date is April 26, 2002, because that is the date listed on three Official

Indiana Department of Correction documents that Starr attached to his petition. (DE # 1-1 at 10, 11, 18.) It

is also the date he included in his attached narrative description of his criminal history. (DE # 1-1 at 1.) 
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must

consider whether to grant a certificate of appealability. When the court dismisses a

petition on procedural grounds, the determination of whether a certificate of

appealability should issue has two components. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85

(2000). First, the petitioner must show that reasonable jurists would find it debatable

whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling. Id. at 484. If the petitioner meets

that requirement, then he must show that reasonable jurists would find it debatable

whether the petition states a valid claim for the denial of a constitutional right. Id. Starr

was not in custody on the charges he is attempting to challenge in this habeas corpus

petition. There is no basis for finding that jurists of reason would debate the correctness

of this procedural ruling or find a reason to encourage him to proceed further.

Therefore a certificate of appealability must be denied.

For these reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED and a certificate of

appealability is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Date: February 19, 2016

 s/ James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM DARWIN THOMPSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 93 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of July, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:16-cr-00058-TLS-SLC

)

RENE A. DEL RIO-SALAZAR, also known as )

Rene A. Del-Rio Salazar )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, CHIEF JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge

Susan Collins, on September 6, 2017, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for

Defendant, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant under oath on the

record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and of

counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not guilty,

to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and his
right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and is

not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty and that Defendant be

adjudged guilty of the offense charged in Count 1 of the two-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and

Recommendation be accepted and Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Chief Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the

Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 8th day of September 2017.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins

United States Magistrate Judge

2
# L_2009111DE.01005102.xml

| 5.5.2009 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 111/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2009

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 111/51

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 514/2008 der Kommission vom 9. Juni 2008 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 376/2008 mit gemeinsamen Durchführungsvorschriften für Einfuhr- und Ausfuhrlizenzen sowie Vorausfestsetzungsbescheinigungen für landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse sowie zur Änderung der Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 1439/95, (EG) Nr. 245/2001, (EG) Nr. 2535/2001, (EG) Nr. 1342/2003, (EG) Nr. 2336/2003, (EG) Nr. 1345/2005, (EG) Nr. 2014/2005, (EG) Nr. 951/2006, (EG) Nr. 1918/2006, (EG) Nr. 341/2007, (EG) Nr. 1002/2007, (EG) Nr. 1580/2007 und (EG) Nr. 382/2008 und zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1119/79

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 150 vom 10. Juni 2008
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 150 vom 10. Juni 2008

Auf Seite 10, Artikel 1 Nummer 1 in Bezug auf Artikel 1 Absatz 2 Buchstabe a Ziffer i letzter Satzteil der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 376/2008:

anstatt:

„soweit in der vorliegenden Verordnung nicht anders geregelt“

muss es heißen:

„soweit im genannten Anhang II Teil I nicht anders geregelt“.

Auf Seite 24, Anhang I in Bezug auf Anhang II Teil II (Untertitel) der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 376/2008:

anstatt:

muss es heißen:

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research: Wooster, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Groups
                        Corn & Soybean Virus Lab
                                    Soft Wheat Quality LabSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Wooster, Ohio Corn, Soybean and Wheat Quality Research Docs





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

2006 Research Review Conferenceheadline bar Highlights of the 53rd Annual Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory Research Review Conference and Flour Methods Workshop included: Report of the Cincinnati Section of the AACC comparing different experimental mills using a single grain sample: Collaborative Report and Cookie Images Presentations included: Ed Souza (USDA-ARS) "Wheat Quality Teams for Expanding Markets" Louise Slade  "Cookie vs. Cracker Baking--What's the Difference?". Clay Sneller (Ohio State U.) "Genetics of Soft Wheat Quality and Tortillas" Mary Guttieri (U of Idaho) "Improving the Nutritional Quality of Wheat"


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2024 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Etoxazole. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2005 

Mrs. TAUSCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Etoxazole. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ETOXAZOLE. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.06.23 2-(2,6-Difluorophenyl)–4-[4- 

(1,1-dimethylethyl)–2- 

ethoxyphenyl]-4,5- 

dihydrooxazole (CAS No. 

153233–91–1) (provided for 

in subheading 2934.99.18) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2024 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 the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
# L_2008092EN.01004001.xml

| 3.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 92/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 92/40

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 163/2008 of 22 February 2008 concerning an authorisation of the preparation Lanthanum carbonate octahydrate (Lantharenol) as a feed additive

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 50 of 23 February 2008
  )

On page 5, in the Annex, in the last column of the table, ‘End of period of authorisation’:

for:

‘
  6 March 2018
  ’,

read:

‘
  14 March 2018
  ’.

---
#### KENNY, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CITY RY. CO., Appellant (two cases).

(Supreme-Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Actions by James H. Kenny against the New York City Railway Company.

No opinion. Judgments of the Municipal Court affirmed, on consent in open court, with costs.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John F. Cole, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Hytek Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended  June 28, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Hytek Microsystems, Inc.  

|   | By:    | /s/ JOHN F. COLE                            |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                                             |   |
|   | Name:  | **John F. Cole**                            |   |
|   | Title: | **President & Chief Executive Officer** |   |

I, Sally B. Chapman, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Hytek Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Hytek Microsystems, Inc.  

|   | By:          | /s/ SALLY B. CHAPMAN                        |   |
|--------|--------------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |         |                                             |   |
|   | Name:   | **Sally B. Chapman**                        |   |
|   | Title:  | **Chief Financial Officer & Secretary** |   |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Hytek Microsystems,Inc. and will be retained by Hytek Microsystems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.