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 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The small business issuer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)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting;



5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|      |  |                        
|----- |  | -----------------------
|Date: |  | November 12, 2005      
|      | 
|By:   |  | /s/ Joan Katzeff       
|      |  | Joan Katzeff, President
#### NYCTL 2005-A Trust et al., Plaintiffs, v Rosenberger Boat Livery, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. Joan Iacono, Esq., Receiver-Appellant, v Ronald Magro, Third-Party Bidder-Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 2]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered October 27, 2011, which denied the motion of defendants Rosenberger Boat Livery, Inc. and John E. Burke and nonparty Joan Iacono, as Rosenberger’s temporary receiver, to vacate (1) an order, same court (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered November 13, 2008, appointing a referee, (2) a judgment of foreclosure, same court (Silver, J.), entered June 17, 2010, and (3) an auction sale that took place on October 25, 2010, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Rosenberger’s temporary receiver was not a necessary party because title to the property remained with the corporation *(see Bate v Brenack Stevedoring Co., Inc.,*197 App Div 194, 195 [1921]). We note that Rosenberger and Burke (who owns one half of Rosenberger’s shares) appeared early on in this litigation.

The documents challenged by defendants are labeled affidavits and begin, “[name of witness], *being duly sworn,*deposes and says.” (emphasis added). Therefore, the referee and the foreclosure court could accept these documents as affidavits *(see Sparaco v Sparaco,*309 AD2d 1029, 1030 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 702 [2004]), even though the notary stated that the witness “acknowledged . . . that he executed the same.” In any event, defendants do not point to any inaccuracies in the documents.

Even assuming, arguendo, the Bronx Press Review did not *426qualify as a “newspaper” pursuant to General Construction Law § 60 (a) because it did not have a paid circulation, notice of the sale was also published in the New York Law Journal, and defendants do not contend that the Law Journal fails to qualify as a newspaper. Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 231 (2) (a) requires publication in only one newspaper when the real property to be sold is located in a county within the city of New York. Thus, publication was proper.

The irregularities in the referee’s terms of sale were properly disregarded by the court inasmuch as they did not affect a substantial right of any party *(see*CPLR 2001).

Rosenberger could have redeemed its property “at any point before the property [wa]s actually sold at a foreclosure sale” *(NYCTL 1999-1 Trust v 573 Jackson Ave. Realty Corp.,*13 NY3d 573, 579 [2009], *cert denied*561 US —, 130 S Ct 3466 [2010]). However, after the sale, the right to redeem was extinguished, even though no deed had yet been delivered to the purchaser *(see e.g. Chase Manhattan Mtge. Corp. v Harper,*54 AD3d 987, 988 [2008]).

Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating a disparity in price *and*“one of the categories integral to the invocation of equity such as fraud, mistake or exploitive overreaching” *(Guardian Loan Co. v Early,*47 NY2d 515, 521 [1979]), to warrant setting aside the sale of the property.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ.
James S. Coon 

OSB# 771450 

THOMAS, COON, NEWTON & FROST 

820 SW 2"' Avenue, Suite 200 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

Phone (503) 228-5222 

Fax (503) 273-9175 

E-mail: jcoon@tcnf.legal 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CATHY D. MARTIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: 3:15-cv-00573-AC 

ORDER GRANTING 

STIPULATED MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY FEES UNDER 28 

U.S.C. § 2412 

Based on the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees 

in the amount of $2, 193.19 will be awarded to Plaintiff in care of her attorneys pursuant 

to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, payable after the satisfaction of 

Plaintiff's debts, if any, under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), and mailed to her 

attorney, James S. Coon, at Mr. Coon's address: 820 SW 2nd Ave Ste 200, Portland 

OR 97204. There are no costs or expenses. 

;f)f,\ /)J., ··· I / Dated this,!_(_c_• day of .; k,,;1"JJ»,(! , 2016. 

Presented by: 

James S. Coon 

Thomas, Coon, Newton & Frost 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

l ;'/( 

~-+- u. I 

Unite~ S\ates ldi1l1istJudge 

\) if~r*~ 

Case 3:15-cv-00573-AC Document 35 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 1
#### Town of Big Flats, Respondent, v Elwyn E. Vaughan, Appellant.

Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
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
 U.S. Meat Animal Research Center: Clay Center, NE
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    WGS
                        WGS main page
                                    Cattle reference (v2.9)
                                    Cattle extended (v1.0)
                                    Sheep reference (v2.4)
                                    Sheep extended (v1.0)
                                    Sheep ISGC75
                                    Species mapped to cattle
                                    Species mapped to sheep
                                    Cell lines
                    USMARC Research Units
                        Animal Health Genomics
                                    Genetics and Animal Breeding
                                    Livestock Bio-systems
                                    Meat Safety & Quality
                                    Nutrition, Growth and PhysiologySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Clay Center, Nebraska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Documents Internships





- ARS Careers
- ARS Jobs at USAJOBS
- Careers

Careersheadline bar Applying to the Internship program for 2024 is currently closed.


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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald O’Garro, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J.), rendered December 9, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*610Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court admitted testimony which amounted to impermissible bolstering was not preserved for review as a matter of law *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Thomas,*50 NY2d 467; *People v Cummings,*109 AD2d 748), and in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, we decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to review it.

Finally, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Niehoff and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             741
<SECURITIES>                                 1,315,255
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,109
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,334,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,450
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,315,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,334,105
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               (18,610)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18,601)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2800 TINA D. SHAVER, Owner of Kwik Check Carry Out, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-131-6) Submitted: March 17, 1998 Decided: April 29, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William B. Richardson, Jr., Robert D. Campbell, RICHARDSON & RICHARDSON, Parkersburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Att orney, Gary L. Call, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Tina Shaver appeals the district court's order granting the Government's motion for summary judgment in this action challenging the Department of Agriculture's order permanently disqualifying Shaver and Kwik Check Carry Out from partic ipation in the food stamp program. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Shaver v. United States , No. CA96-131-6 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 24, 1996). We grant Shaver's unopposedmotion to submit the case on the briefs without oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linda Victoria VILLEGAS-ESCALANTE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50465

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 2, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for D efendant-Appellant.

*466Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Pursuant to her guilty plea, Linda Victoria Villegas-Escalante was convicted of one count of importing a quantity of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, and one count of possessing with intent to distribute a quantity of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. She appeals her concurrent 33-month sentences.

Notwithstanding the Sentencing Guidelines’ now being advisory, a district court must still determine the guideline range. *E.g., United States v. Charon,*442 F.3d 881, 886-87 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 260, 166 L.Ed.2d 202 (2006). Its interpretation and application of those Guidelines is reviewed *de novo;*its factual determinations, only for clear error. *Id.*

Focusing on a portion of the probation officer’s responses to her objections to the Modified Presentence Report, Villegas contends the district court misapplied Guidelines § 3B1.2 by determining she was ineligible for a minor-role adjustment because she was the only defendant. We decline to disturb that ruling on this basis because the record does not show the adjustment was denied for this reason.

Villegas next contends the district court clearly erred in determining she was *not*a minor participant. She maintains her only activity in the offense was to drive a vehicle a short distance into the United States and to park it. Villegas asserts: she was recruited and was to be paid by another person who was higher up in the organization; and other persons were to distribute the marijuana in the United States.

The determination of a defendant’s role in the offense is a factual finding, reviewed only for clear error. *United States v. Deavours,*219 F.3d 400, 404 (5th Cir.2000). To be eligible for a minor-role adjustment, a defendant “must have been peripheral to the advancement of the illicit activity”. *United States v. Miranda,*248 F.3d 434, 447 (5th Cir.2001).

In the light of Villegas’ actual involvement in importing and possessing a distributable quantity of marijuana, the district court did *not*clearly err in denying a minor-role adjustment. *See United States v. Atanda,*60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.1995); *United States v. Gallegos,*868 F.2d 711, 712-13 (5th Cir.1989).

*AFFIRMED.*

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
TRANSITION REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1997 TO JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,433
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,586
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,249
<INVENTORY>                                    103,610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,115
<PP&E>                                         125,574
<DEPRECIATION>                                  70,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 258,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,351
<BONDS>                                        135,238
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            18
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,133)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   258,279
<SALES>                                        260,848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               260,848
<CGS>                                          227,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  227,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,888
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,026
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,702)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       246
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,948)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,948)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No.: 3:15−cr−00238−SI

 Plaintiff,

v. BRADY DISCLOSURE ORDER

DAN HEINE, et al.

 Defendant.

Under federal law, including Rule 5(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and all applicable decisions from the Supreme Court and the Ninth

Circuit interpreting Brady, the government has a continuing obligation to produce all information or

evidence known to the government relating to guilt or punishment that might reasonably be considered

favorable to the defendant's case, even if the evidence is not admissible so long as it is reasonably likely

to lead to admissible evidence. See United States v. Price, 566 F.3d 900,913 n.14 (9th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, the court orders the government to produce to the defendant in a timely manner all such

information or evidence.

Information or evidence may be favorable to a defendant's case if it either may help bolster the

defendant's case or impeach a prosecutor's witness or other government evidence. If doubt exists, it

should be resolved in favor of the defendant with full disclosure being made.

If the government believes that a required disclosure would compromise witness safety, victim

rights, national security, a sensitive law−enforcement technique, or any other substantial government

interest, the government may apply to the Court for a modification of the requirements of this Disclosure

Order, which may include in camera review and/or withholding or subjecting to a protective order all or

part of the information.

This Disclosure Order is entered under Rule 5(f) and does not relieve any party in this matter of any

other discovery obligation. The consequences for violating either this Disclosure Order or the

government's obligations under Brady include, but are not limited to, the following: contempt, sanction,

referral to a disciplinary authority, adverse jury instruction, exclusion of evidence, and dismissal of

charges. Nothing in this Disclosure Order enlarges or diminishes the government's bligation to disclose

information and evidence to a defendant under Brady, as interpreted and applied under Supreme Court

and Ninth Circuit precedent. As the Supreme Court noted, "the government violates the Constitution's

Due Process Clause 'if it withholds evidence that is favorable to the defense and material to the

defendant's guilt or punishment."' Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885, 1888 (2017), quoting Smith

v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73, 75 (2012).

DATED this 10th day of November, 2021 /s/Michael H. Simon

Honorable Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge.