alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2  I, Bill Akrivos, in my capacity indicated below, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alco Energy Corp. (the Registrant); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and   procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: February 13, 2009 /s/ Bill Akrivos Bill Akrivos, President (as Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2019044EN.01002801.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-31/17) (1)

((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Specific measures in favour of the outermost regions - Article 12(c) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 - Technical assistance - Inspection measures - Procedural guarantees - Legitimate expectations))

(2019/C 44/35)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and A. Tavares de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rechena and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2018 of 15 November 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 312, p. 26), in so far as it excludes from that financing in relation to the Portuguese Republic the amounts of EUR 460 202,73and of EUR 200 000 (Budget item 6701).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---
(309728807.1 )

TP ICAP Classification: Public
# C_2023045EN.01003304.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/33

---

Order of the General Court of 28 November 2022 — FLA Europe v Commission

(Case T-347/17) (1)

(2023/C 45/45)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 249, 31.7.2017.

---
<PAGE>

                        SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION (CFO)

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                         CHINA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC.

                            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 China Automotive Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Daming Hu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: March 31, 2005

                                                   /s/ Daming Hu
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Daming Hu
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The undersigned, Richard G. Whatley, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Alpha Gold Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A1 of Alpha Gold Corporation for the year ended February 29, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A1 fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Alpha Gold Corporation.

Date: May 28, 2009



By:





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear 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.





i
# C_2017357EN.01002202.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/22

---

Action brought on 11 August 2017 — Coral Venture v SRB

(Case T-532/17)

(2017/C 357/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Coral Venture, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Niño Camazón, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Take note of the annulment proceedings against the resolution issued by the SRB on 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) agreeing to the resolution of the institution Banco Popular and approving the resolution scheme containing the resolution measures to apply to that institution and, following the appropriate procedural steps, grant the forms of order sought. |
| --- | --- |

—

Take note of the annulment proceedings against the resolution issued by the SRB on 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) agreeing to the resolution of the institution Banco Popular and approving the resolution scheme containing the resolution measures to apply to that institution and, following the appropriate procedural steps, grant the forms of order sought.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.

Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos

Single Resolution Board

Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL

Single Resolution Board

Comercial Vascongada Recalde

Commission and Single Resolution Board

García Suárez and Others

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Fidesban and Others

Single Resolution Board

Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015

Commission and Single Resolution Board

Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda

Commission and Single Resolution Board

---
#### Commonwealth *v.*Popp, et al., Appellants.

*Practice O. P.*— Granting *of new trial*— Discretion *of lower*court— *Directa^, verdict.*

The trial judge cannot be required to entertain a motion to direct a verdict of acquittal until the conclusion of all the testimony.

The granting of a new trial is in the discretion of the trial court. On appeal the trial court will not be reversed except for plain error, or abuse of discretion. -Matters not raised in the trial in the court below will not be considered on appeal.

Argued October 22, 1925.

Appeal No. 31, April T., 1926, by defendant from judgment and sentence pf Q. *194S. Allegheny County, February Sessions, 1921, No. 942, in the case of Commonwealth v. Gabor D. Popp et al. Appeal of Gabor D. Popp.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Indictment for embezzlement. Before Reid, J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Verdict of guilty, on which judgment of sentence was passed. Defendants appealed.

*Error assigned*was, among others, the court’s refusal to direct a verdict for the defendants.

*A. C. Purdy,*of *Scott and Purdy,*for appellant.

*Benjamin Lencher,*Assistant District Attorney, and with him *Samuel H. Gardner,*District Attorney, for appellee.

February 26, 1926:

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

There are two assignments of error. The first charges the court with error in refusing the defendant’s motion at the close of the Commonwealth’s case, to the effect that the court direct a verdict for the defendants. This motion was overruled. The trial judge cannot be required to entertain a motion to direct a verdict of acquittal until the conclusion of all the testimony. This matter was fully discussed in Commonwealth v. Sonis and Sonis, 81 Superior Ct. 205, by our Brother Porter, now President Judge, and it will not be necessary to repeat what was there said.

The second assignment is directed to the refusal of the court to grant a new trial. The granting of a new trial is in the discretion of the trial court. It will not be reversed except for a plain error or abuse of discretion. Class and Nachod Brewing Co. v. Giacobello, 277 Pa. 530. We have read the record and the verdict *195was fully justified by the testimony. Furthermore, in all the reasons assigned for a new trial in the court below, there is no suggestion that the court committed an error such as is referred to in the argument on appeal. The uniform rule in the appellate courts is: they will not consider matters that have not been raised in the trial in the court below. As there is nothing properly before us in this case, we sustain the judgment without further consideration of the questions presented by the appellant.

The assignments of error are overruled. The judgment is affirmed and the record remitted to the court below and it is ordered that the defendant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence or any part of it which had not been performed at the time the appeal in this case was made a supersedeas.
EXHIBIT 31.2  I, Andreas Klimm, in my capacity indicated below, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of Alco Energy Corp. (the Registrant); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and   procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: November 16, 2009 /s/ Andreas Klimm Andreas Klimm, President (as Principal Financial Officer)
#### David Anthony STEBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-35082.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2013.*

Filed May 30, 2013.

David Anthony Stebbins, Harrison, AR, pro se.

John Goldmark, Stephen M. Rummage, Esquire, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

David Anthony Stebbins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action to enforce an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, *Knievel v. ESPN,*393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of reconsideration, *Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stebbins’s action because Stebbins’s unilateral amendments to an existing contract with Microsoft Corporation did not give rise to a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties. *See First Options v. Kaplan,*514 U.S. 938, 944, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995) (state law principles of contract formation generally govern the determination of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a certain matter); *Keystone Land & Dev. Co. v. Xerox Corp.,*152 Wash.2d 171, 94 P.3d 945, 949 (2004) (under Washington state law, “the parties must objectively manifest their mutual assent” to form a contract).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration because Stebbins failed to establish grounds for such relief. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J,*5 F.3d at 1263 (discussing grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

Stebbins’s contentions regarding defendant’s alleged control over the district court are unpersuasive.

We do not address arguments allegedly incorporated by reference on appeal. *See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1992) (arguments not expressly discussed in the opening brief are deemed waived).

Stebbins’s motion to file a supplemental brief, filed on March 12, 2012, is denied as moot and his motion for a stay is denied.

Stebbins’s motion to clarify this court’s April 9, 2012 order, filed on April 9, 2012, is granted in part, and the Clerk is directed to file an amended order clarifying that *590its March 20, 2012 order, not the June 30, 2009 order, is vacated.

Stebbins’s “Motion to not schedule oral argument or in the alternative for leave to participate in oral argument by telephone or in the alternative for appointment of counsel [for oral argument],” filed on June 16, 2012, is denied.

Microsoft’s motion to file late Excerpts of Record, filed on March 19, 2013, is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Clear All

        15 April 2024    

#                     USFF and CNIC to Conduct Hurricane Preparedness Exercise                 

                WASHINGTON – U.S. Fleet Forces Command (USFFC) and Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC) will conduct their annual two-week hurricane preparedness, disaster response and recovery exercise, Hurricane Exercise/Citadel Gale (HURREX/CG-24) 2024 from April 22 – May 3. “We are committed to our            

        28 August 2023    

#                     Florida U.S. Navy bases prepare for arrival of Tropical Storm Idalia                 

                JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – The Navy has ordered all ships and aircraft to make preparations for the arrival of Tropical Storm Idalia.Ships will begin departures from Naval Air Station Mayport today and tomorrow or complete heavy weather mooring if required to stay in port. Aircraft will initiate            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
<PAGE>

                                UNITED STATES
                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            Washington D.C. 20549


                                   FORM 15


                  Certification and Notice of Termination of
              Registration under Section 12(g) of the Securities
              Exchange Act of 1934 or Suspension of Duty to File
                  Reports under Sections 13 and 15(d) of the
                       Securities Exchange Act of 1934



                         Commission File Number 08628
                         ----------------------------

                      FOUR CORNERS FINANCIAL CORPORATION

            (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
            ------------------------------------------------------

                  370 East Avenue, Rochester, New York 14604
                  ------------------------------------------
                         (Address, including zip code
                 of registrant's principal executive offices)
                 -------------------------------------------
                                (716) 454-2263
             (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

                        Commmon Stock, $4.00 par value
                        ------------------------------
           (Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)



                                     None
                                     ----
        Titles of all other classes of securities for which a duty to
              file reports under section 13(a) or 15(d) remains



         Please place an X in the box(es) to designate the appropiate
rule provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:



 Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i) /x/ Rule 12(h)-3(b)(1)(ii) / / Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii) / /
    Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i) / / Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i) / / Rule 12h-3(b)(ii) / /
       Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii) / / Rule 15d-6 / / Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i) /x/

Approximate number of holders of record as of the certification or notice date:
174


Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, FOUR
CORNERS FINANCIAL CORPORATION has caused this certification/notice on its
behalf by the undersigned duly authorized person.




DATE: April 9, 1999                        By: /s/ William Gagliano
                                               --------------------------------
                                               William Gagliano,
                                               Executive Vice President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clayton Robinson, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a conviction, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree. Defendant’s claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct was not preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and discretionary review in the interest of justice *940is not warranted. Contrary to appellate counsel’s contention, the trial court, in ruling upon the *Sandoval*motion, did not preclude the prosecutor from cross-examining defendant regarding a prior conviction for disorderly conduct. Further, the prosecutor did not deliberately elicit testimony from the police officer that the serial number of a car stereo taken from defendant at the time of his arrest was recorded on a police property recovery slip, and this single, isolated reference to the slip was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial.

Finally, we reject defendant’s claim that the sentence im-

posed was unduly harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J. — burglary, second degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.