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



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Joan Katzeff, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a) designed such
disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and



c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
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 functions):



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; and



b) 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.



|Date: November 12, 2003                            
|---------------------------------------------------
|                                                   
|By:                                                
|Joan Katzeff, President and Chief Financial Officer
### THEATITORNEY GENERAL OF-TEXAS

Hori. M-i0. Flowers Secretary of State Austin, Texas Dear Sir: ODinion No. O-2017 Ri: 1s"proposedcharter of "Unitedhmerlcan Club of Bexai-County, Texas," an sducatltinal

undertaking within the purview of subdivision2, Article 1302,Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 

### 19251 This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 27, 3.940,

in which you seek the opinion of this department on the question of whether or not the purpose cliliuse containedfin th6 charter a#plicatltin of the "UnitedAmerican Club of Bexar County,Texas comeswithin the purview.of an educationalundertaking as ContemplateKby subdivision 2, Article 1302, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925. The purpose clauseunder consideration is: "ThLsassociation Is formed for the purpose df supportingan educationalprogram, designed' to break down racial prejudice betweeil natlotis; perpetuate good fellowship and Americanism, aiding one another In the'procurement of work and striving for the general imijrovement of social conditions in the City of San Antonio and Bexar County,Texas." We think there can be no doubtbut that our opinion Nos; 0-1028~,

approved July 22, 1939;0-1032, approved July 22, 1939, and o-1171, approvedAugust 19, 1939, the originals of which aI'ein your files, are determinative of the question here submitted.

For e&h of the reasons contained in the above mentlon6d opinionswe mst necessarily hold that the purpose clause presented in the Instant application is not educational'~within the purview and Intent of Section 2, Article 1302,Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925.Ron. M. 0. Flowers,page 2 O-2017

Yours very truly ATTORNEY GENmL OF TEXAS
By s/LloydArmstrong Lloyd Armstrong Assistant U:AW:wc

APPROVEI MhR 9, 1940 s/Gerald C. Mann ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF TEXAS Approved Opinion CommitteeBy s/EWE3 Chairman
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
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Dallas  Pfannenstiel
                        Physical Security

                        




                        
                        Secretary (Office Automation)
                        Phone: (785) 712-3090
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabriel ZUNIGA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-12888

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 22, 2007.

Michael Dennis Walsh, Law Offices of Michael Walsh, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

*955Before DUBINA, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Gabriel Zuniga appeals the 240-month sentences imposed following his guilty plea for attempting to import cocaine, conspiracy to import cocaine, and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 963. Zuniga was involved in the transportation of large quantities of cocaine from Colombia into the United States, via the Caribbean.

Zuniga argues that the district court clearly erred by applying a three-level aggravating role enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. Zuniga asserts that the district court incorrectly found that he and co-conspirator Cesar Augusto Mantilla Chavez were on the same level in the conspiracy, where the evidence showed that Zuniga was Mantilla’s subordinate. Zuniga contends that he was merely a middleman with no control over the conspiracy.

“A district court’s upward adjustment of a defendant’s Guidelines offense level due to his status as a leader or organizer under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 is a finding of fact reviewed only for clear error.” *United States v. Phillips,*287 F.3d 1053, 1055 (11th Cir.2002).

Section 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for enhanced offense levels for defendants with aggravating roles. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. “If the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants” then a three-level enhancement is to be applied. U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(b). The assertion of control or influence over only one individual is enough to support a § 3B1.1 enhancement. *See United States v. Jiminez,*224 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir.2000). “The government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had an aggravating role in the offense.” *United States v. Yeager,*331 F.3d 1216, 1226 (11th Cir.2003).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in applying a three-level aggravating role enhancement to Zuniga. There is no dispute that the instant drug-trafficking conspiracy involved five or more participants. The evidence makes it clear that Zuniga “asserted] control or influence” over the distribution of cocaine once it was delivered from Colombia to Jamaica, using others to unload, transport, and sell cocaine in Jamaica, and over the delivery of drug-sale proceeds back to Colombia, using others to personally transport the money. This is sufficient to support the three-level aggravating role enhancement. *See Jiminez,*224 F.3d at 1251. Accordingly, we affirm Zuniga’s sentences.

AFFIRMED.
EX-10.2









Exhibit 10.2




UST Sequence No. 116




FORM OF WAIVER



In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s participation in the
United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby
voluntarily waive any claim against the United States or my employer for any changes to my
compensation or benefits that are required to comply with the regulation issued by the
Department of the Treasury as published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2008.



I acknowledge that this regulation may require modification of the compensation, bonus,

incentive and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called
“golden parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer or in which I participate as they
relate to the period the United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired
through the TARP Capital Purchase Program.



This waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any state
related to the requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation, including without
limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I would otherwise receive, any
challenge to the process by which this regulation was adopted and any tort or constitutional claim
about the effect of these regulations on my employment relationship.




	 	 	 
	 

	 	Agreed to and acknowledged
	 

	 	as of this 12th day of December 2008
# C_2005251EN.01001201.xml

| 11.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/12

---

Notification by the Republic of Slovenia concerning visa reciprocity (1)

1

(2005/C 251/18)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic Slovenia to the European Union presents its compliments to the Council of the EU and has the honour to notify that Slovene nationals, with respect to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from the requirement, as regards reciprocity mechanism on 24 June 2005, are subject to a visa requirement by the following third countries listed in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001:

| 1. | Australia, |
| --- | --- |

1.

Australia,

| 2. | Brunei. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Brunei.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic Slovenia to the European Union avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Council of the EU the assurances of its highest consideration and friendship.

---

(1)  This notification is published in conformity with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

1

---
**Exhibit 31.1**
 Certifications
 SECTION 302
 
 I, Frank D. Puissegur, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of American Commerce Solutions, 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our 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 functions):
 
 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; and
 
 b) 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.
   **AMERICAN COMMERCE SOLUTIONS, INC**Date: January 10, 2005
By:
/s/ Frank D. PuissegurFrank D. PuissegurTitle: Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) and Director
#### Harold M. Langs, Appellant, v Benjamin Yentel, Respondent.

— In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of a contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.), entered July 25, 1985, which denied his motion for leave to renew so much of a 1983 motion as sought a new hearing on the issue of damages, based upon newly discovered evidence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Special Term properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew *(see, Mayer v McBrunigan Constr. Corp.,*123 AD2d 606; *Caffee v Arnold,*104 AD2d 352). Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0212 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSHUA GLEN REID,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 14, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 4 2022

11/04/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0212
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EMILY GARCIA, Plaintiff, ) 

) 

) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

) 

CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner, ) 

Social Security Administration ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

) 

CASE No.: 3:15-cv-00352-KI 

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY 

FEES PER 28 use 406(b) 

It is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), an attorney fee in 

the amount of $6,031.88 is approved to Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this /ff!::_ day of ~Jv V\ 12_.. , 2016./ 

. f1J ~/)/~ tll .... ·/) ~1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Proposed Order submitted: 

George ( all, OSB #934515 

gwall@eastpdxlaw.com 

Phone No.: 503-236-0068 

Fax No.: 503-236-0028 

Attorney for Plaintiff, Emily Garcia 

Page 4 - PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR FEES PER 42 

USC 406(b) 

Date: June 8, 2016 

George J. Wall 

Attorney at Law 

1336 E Burnside Street, Ste 130 

Portland, OR 97214 

Tel: 503-236-0068 

Fax: 503-236-0028 

Case 3:15-cv-00352-KI Document 22 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 1
#### MOORE, Respondent, v. LONG ISLAND EXP. CO., Appellant.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County,

General Term.

December 23, 1895.)

Action by John Moore against the Long Island Express Company.

William J. Kelly, for appellant.

A. Bell Malcolmson, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, a shipper of goods concededly lost when in the_ custody of the defendant carrier, brought suit for their reasonable value, and recovered $50, the amount .of the defendant’s liability as limited by the shipping receipt. True, as claimed by the appellant, a payment had been made to the plaintiff’s wife, but upon the facts disclosed by the record we cannot hold that this affected the plaintiff’s cause of action. As to attendant details of the transaction there was a fair _ conflict of evidence, not unreasonably resolved in favor of the respondent, and the damages in suit were sufficiently proven by affidavits as to the value of the chattels, which documents were further entitled to credit under the plaintiff’s sworn statement as to their truth in open court. The judgment is to be affirmed, with costs.
Bruce W. Brewer, OSB No. 925581 

brucebrewerusdccases@gmail.com 

PO Box 421 

West Linn, OR 97068 

503-621-6633 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MARIA LEWIS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER, 

of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Case No. 6:15-cv-00593-SB 

ORDER (EAJA FEES) 

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that, pursuant to the 

Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, an attorney fee in the amount of$9,475 is 

awarded to Plaintiff. It is ordered that the aforementioned attorney fee will be paid directly to 

Plaintiffs attorney, dependent upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt which qualifies for 

offset against the awarded fees, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. 

Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the check shall be made 

payable to Plaintiff's attorney, Bruce Brewer, and mailed to him at PO Box 421, West Linn, OR 

97068. If Plaintiff has such debt, then the check for any remaining funds after offset of the debt 

1 - ORDER FOR EAJA FEES 

Case 6:15-cv-00593-SB Document 47 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 2
shall be made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney at PO Box 421, West Linn, 

OR 97068. There are no costs or expenses to be paid herein. 

DATED thisJ/// day of_. -+-- -' 20 17. 

Submitted by: 

Bruce W. Brewer, OSB No. 925581 

503-62 1-6633, Attorney for Plaintiff 

2 - ORDER FOR EAJA FEES 

The Honorable tacie F. Beckerman 

United States District Court Magistrate Judge 

Case 6:15-cv-00593-SB Document 47 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 2
#### Ann Maria Palmer, Appellant, *v.*Gustav H. Safft, Respondent.

(Submitted October 9, 1890;

decided October 28, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, made December 5, 1888, which' set aside a verdict directed by the court in favor of plaintiff and granted a new trial

*D. D. McKoon*for appellant.

*Eugene K. Sackett*for respondent.

Agree to affirm ; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered for defendant on stipulation.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1511

AN ACT

To amend section 3165 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 to clarify the authority

in the section.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1511 ES

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY.

2 (a) CLARIFICATION.—Section 3165 of the National

3 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 is amend4 ed—

5 (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking out ‘‘under

6 the jurisdiction’’ and all that follows through ‘‘Los

7 Alamos National Laboratory’’ and inserting in lieu

8 thereof ‘‘under the jurisdiction or administrative

9 control of the Secretary at or in the vicinity of Los

10 Alamos National Laboratory’’; and

11 (2) in subsection (e), by striking out ‘‘, the Sec12 retary of the Interior’’ and all that follows through

13 the end and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘but not later

14 than 90 days after the submittal of the report under

15 subsection (d)(1)(C), the County and the Pueblo

16 shall submit to the Secretary an agreement between

17 the County and the Pueblo which allocates between

18 the County and the Pueblo the parcels identified for

19 conveyance or transfer under subsection (b).’’.

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

21 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the provi22 sions of section 3165 of the National Defense Authoriza-
3

S 1511 ES

1 tion Act for Fiscal Year 1998 to which such amendments

2 relate.

Passed the Senate November 9, 1997.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1511

AN ACT

To amend section 3165 of the National Defense

the authority in the section.Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 to clarify