alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Ron E. Hooper, certify that
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Tidelands Royalty Trust “B” for which Bankof America, N.A. acts as Trustee; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s Principal Accounting Officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s Principal Accounting Officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: March 29, 2005 /s/ RON E. HOOPER   Ron E. Hooper   Senior Vice President Royalty Management onbehalf of Bank of America Private Bank, not in
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofEtelos, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(a)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b)                                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: May 15, 2009 | /s/ Daniel J.A. Kolke                      |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                    | Daniel J.A. Kolke, Chief Executive Officer |
|                    | (Principal Executive  Officer)             |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11826]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-01-018]


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: International Trade Commission.

TIME AND DATE: May 15, 2001 at 11 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

Matters To Be Considered

    1. Agenda for future meeting: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-875, 879, 880, and 882 (Final) (Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Indonesia, Moldova, Poland, and 
Ukraine)--briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to 
transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary 
of Commerce on May 25, 2001.)
    5. Outstanding action jackets:
    1. Document No. GC-01-042: Regarding Inv. No. 337-TA-429 (Certain 
Bar Clamps, Bar Clamp Pads, and Related Packaging, Display, and Other 
Materials).
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 4, 2001.
Donna R. Koehnke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11826 Filed 5-7-01; 2:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
# EUR-Lex - 52004PC0706 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 52004PC0706

**Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council amending Decision 1419/1999/EC establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019 /* COM/2004/0706 final - COD 2003/0274 */ **

*

*

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council amending Decision 1419/1999/EC establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019

2003/0274 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and the Council amending Decision 1419/1999/EC establishing a Community action for the European Capital of Culture event for the years 2005 to 2019

1- BACKGROUND

Proposal sent to the EP and the Council

(Document COM (2003) 700 -2003/0274(COD)) // 17 November 2003

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions // 21 April 2004

Opinion of the European Parliament at the first reading // 22 April 2004

Common position adopted // 21 October 2004

2- SUBJECT OF THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSAL

The Decision of the European Parliament and the Council 1419/1999/EC provides for participation by the 15 old Member States in the European Capital of Culture event, in chronological order between 2005 and 2009.

The sole aim of the proposal for an amendment to this decision is to enable the new Member States to be integrated quickly into the European Capital of Culture event. The Commission has thus proposed that, from 2009, the new Member States be added to the list of current Member States in the Decision, in a chronological order to be agreed upon by the new Member States.

3- COMMENTS ON THE COMMON POSITION

The Council has unanimously adopted the Commission's amended proposal. The proposal included only amendment 1 voted by the Parliament (introducing a recital on adjusting the budget to allow for the fact that there will be two capitals per year).

4- CONCLUSIONS

The Commission therefore considers that the text of the common position is acceptable.
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 45-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 45-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 45-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 45-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,001,521
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      88,037,151
<DEPRECIATION>                            (49,728,546)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,650,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     50,600,006
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,650,109
<SALES>                                     19,732,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,964,950
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,462,872
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,796,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (293,982)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (293,982)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### HEITLER v. UNITED STATES, and four other cases.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

May 2, 1923.

Rehearing Denied June 14, 1923.)

Nos. 3266-3270.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Criminal prosecutions by the United States against Michael Heitler, against Nathaniel Perlman, against Mandel Greenberg, against Frank McCann, and against George F. Quinn. Judgments of conviction, and defendants separately bring error.

Affirmed.

See, also, 274 Fed. 401.

Weymouth Kirkland and Robert N. Golding, both of Chicago, 111., for plaintiffs in error. Edwin A. Olson and John E. Byrne, both of Chicago, 111., for the United States.

Before BAKER, ALSCHULER, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The record discloses a contrariety of evidence as to the guilt of the defendants who were on trial, a number of whom the jury acquitted. Concededly there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, would support its verdict of conviction of plaintiffs in error. Error is assigned and urged mainly on the rejection of evidence, remarks in closing argument to the jury of the district attorney, and the rulings thereon of the trial judge, the court’s charge to the jury, and the failure to prove certain ones of the alleged criminal objects of the conspiracy charged. In our judgment it ■will serve no useful purpose to present here discussion of these or the other alleged errors. Suffice it to say, we find none of them sustained. No reversible error appearing, each of the judgments herein is affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


We have issued our report dated December 22, 2003, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Robotic
Vision Systems, Inc. and its subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended
September 30, 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
report in the Registration Statements of Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. on Forms
S-8 ( File Nos. 33-45474, 33-63289, 33-64039, 33-70960, 333-14529, 333-03139 ,
333-26149 and 333-40242).


                                        /s/ Grant Thornton LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
December 22, 2003
# C_2004186EN.01000201.xml

| 21.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 186/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/2

---

Communication on the invitation to tender for the subsidy on consignments of husked long-grain B rice to Réunion

(2004/C 186/02)

Regulation (EC) No 1275/2004 (OJ L 241, 13.7.2004, p. 8) extended the period for submitting tenders for the subsidy on consignments of husked long-grain B rice to Réunion opened by Regulation (EC) No 1878/2003 (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 23).

However, for technical reasons, the amendment of the invitation to tender (OJ C 257, 25.10.2003, p. 8) setting the dates for introduction of the offers cannot be published within required time limit. Under these conditions, the extension of the invitation to tender cannot apply.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05309-AKH Document 9 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05309-AKH Document 9 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05309-AKH Document 9 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05309-AKH Document 9 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05309-AKH Document 9 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05309-AKH Document 9 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05309-AKH Document 9 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
A92A0782.

#### MORRIS v. THE STATE.

(423 SE2d 54)

Decided September 30, 1992.

*Ballard, Slade & Ballard, Scott L. Ballard,*for appellant.

*W. Fletcher Sams, District Attorney, W. Hawley Stevens, Assis*
      *651
      *tant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*650Johnson, Judge.

Carla Morris was charged by accusation with five counts of traffic-related violations. A jury found Morris not guilty of counts two, three, and five and guilty of counts one and four. She appeals only her conviction of the charge in count one, driving under the influence of alcohol.

Morris contends that the trial court erred in failing to permit her counsel to state his reasons for moving for a directed verdict thereby denying Morris’ right to counsel. This enumeration is without merit.

At the close of the State’s evidence, Morris’ counsel moved for a directed verdict on counts one, two, and three. When counsel attempted to argue his motion, he was interrupted by the trial judge who stated that he was aware of counsel’s reasons for the directed verdict motion. At the close of all of the evidence, Morris’ counsel renewed his motion for directed verdict and the court denied the motion.

“A directed verdict of acquittal is authorized only where there is *no*evidence to support a verdict to the contrary.” *Lane v. State,*177 Ga. App. 553, 554 (340 SE2d 228) (1986); see also OCGA § 17-9-1. After a review of the entire record, we find that a verdict of acquittal was not demanded in this case. Evidence was presented at trial indicating that Morris performed poorly on the field sobriety tests which were administered to her. Additional evidence resulting from an intoximeter test further indicated that Morris had been driving under the influence of alcohol. We find that there was sufficient evidence presented at the trial of this case that Morris was driving under the influence of alcohol such that a reasonable trier of fact could find her guilty of that offense beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

No matter how compelling counsel’s argument may have been, a review of the record reveals that the standards for granting a directed verdict clearly were not met. While it would have been better practice for the court to have allowed Morris’ counsel to state his reasons in support of the motion, the court’s refusal to do so did not constitute harmful error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carley, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.*
## Breadcrumb

-  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center  

#           Eyes on Earth Episode 20 - Mapping Alaska's Permafrost      

      By Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center 

## Eyes on Earth

Get every episode

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  News 
-  Connect 
-  Partners 
-  About 

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. In this episode, we hear about efforts to map near surface permafrost across Alaska and why such efforts are important.

View Media Details

View

 

Download and Transcript Access

View Media Details

**Summary**: The Arctic is changing at a more rapid rate than the rest of the planet. Some of the most significant changes are tied to the thawing of near-surface permafrost, the layers of frozen soil that contain vast stocks of stored carbon. Scientists at EROS have used remote sensing tools to map the extent of permafrost in Alaska, offering a baseline for further research as change continues to ripple through the state.

**Guests**: Bruce Wylie, Research Physical Scientist at the USGS EROS Center; Neal Pastick, scientist and contractor to the USGS EROS Center

**Host**: Steve Young

**Producer**: Brian Hauge

**Release date**: March 23, 2020

**More on Remote Sensing and Permafrost**: 
                            - Distribution of near-surface permafrost in Alaska: Estimates of present and future conditions
                            - EROS Aids in Surveys of Greenhouse Gas-emitting Arctic Lakes

New Study Provides the First Comprehensive, Long-term Look at Alaska’s Changing Ecosystems

### Contacts
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 28, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-40030

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER LONG,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(2:04-CR-426-ALL)

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

Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Javier Long appeals his conviction

following a jury trial for being a felon in possession of firearms.

He contends that the district court erred when it denied his motion

to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, arguing

that the affidavit in support of probable cause was a “bare bones”

affidavit. Long fails to establish that the good-faith exception

to the exclusionary rule does not apply. See United States v.
2

Cavazos, 288 F.3d 706, 709 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v.

McKnight, 953 F.2d 898, 904-05 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Long’s assertion that the evidence was insufficient to support

his conviction is likewise unavailing. Testimony established that

Long’s car was observed outside 1434 Gavilan prior to the search,

that he possessed a key to the front door, that he knew the

whereabouts of the key to the safe containing firearms, and that

the safe contained a car alarm that matched one on his key chain.

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the

government, and employing some common sense, we are convinced that

the evidence supports the jury’s finding that Long had knowledge of

and access to the firearms inside the residence at 1434 Gavilan.

See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------------x

Eugeniusz Skrzeczkowski and Alicja

Skrzeczkowski

Plaintiffs,

- against -

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA INC. and

NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

et al. (see Defendants’ List)

Defendants.

Index No.: 07-cv-04517-AKH

(AKH)

NOTICE OF THE NOMURA

PARTIES’ ADOPTION OF

ANSWER TO MASTER

COMPLAINT

_________________________

1:21-MC-00102

----------------------------------------------------------------x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants NOMURA PARTIES (Nomura

Holding America Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc.) as and for their responses to

the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) related to

the Master Complaint filed herein and applicable to the above captioned matter hereby

adopts all of the responses and all of the affirmative defenses contained in the Answer

to the Master Complaint dated, filed and served July 31, 2007, In re World Trade Center

Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC102 (AKH). The responses to all of the

allegations in the Master Complaint are adopted herein and are applicable to the CheckOff Complaint served and filed herein.

Case 1:07-cv-04517-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 1 of 3
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES,

reserves the right to serve and file an amended answer and specifically reserves the

right to interpose a cross claim against any and all co-defendants.

PLAEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, also

adopts all affirmative defenses and the jury demand therein.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, demands judgment dismissing

the above captioned action against it along with the costs and disbursements of this

action.

Case 1:07-cv-04517-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 2 of 3
Dated: September 17, 2007

New York, New York

Yours, etc.

STRONGIN ROTHMAN & ABRAMS, LLP

s/ Dror M. Bikel

________________________________

Dror M. Bikel, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA, INC.

50 Broadway, Suite 2003

New York, NY 10004

(212) 931-8300

Case 1:07-cv-04517-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/25/2007 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.2



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 Annual Report of Comdial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth M. Clinebell, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |     |  |                                                             
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 30, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Kenneth M. Clinebell                                    
|                      |  |     |  | Kenneth M. Clinebell                                        
|                      |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.