alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31(b)

I, Mark R. Bachmann, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zep Inc.;

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. The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our 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 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 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: January 10, 2008



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Mark R. Bachmann                                
|Mark R. Bachmann                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been
provided to Zep Inc. and will be retained by Zep Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Lee CLARIDY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6684.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 26, 2013.

Decided: Oct. 3, 2013.

Timothy Lee Claridy, Appellant Pro Se. Seema Mittal, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Lee Claridy seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Claridy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
# C_2010094EN.01000701.xml

| 14.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/7

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 94/04

| Date of adoption of the decision | 18.12.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 592/09 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | Nordrhein-Westfalen |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Staatliche Beihilfe für den Steinkohlenbergbau 2010 |
| Legal basis | Gesetz zur Finanzierung der Beendigung des subventionierten Steinkohlenbergbaus zum Jahr 2018 (Steinkohlefinanzierungsgesetz) vom 20. Dezember 2007
  Rahmenvereinbarung „Sozialverträgliche Beendigung des subventionierten Steinkohlenbergbaus in Deutschland“ vom 14. August 2007
  Kohlerichtlinien des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Technologie vom 28. Dezember 2007 |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Sectoral development, Regional development, Employment |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 2 018 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration (period) | 1.1.2010-31.12.2010 |
| Economic sectors | Coal |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle |
| Frankfurter Str. 29—35 |
| 65760 Eschborn |
| DEUTSCHLAND |

Date of adoption of the decision

18.12.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 592/09

Member State

Germany

Region

Nordrhein-Westfalen

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Staatliche Beihilfe für den Steinkohlenbergbau 2010

Legal basis

Gesetz zur Finanzierung der Beendigung des subventionierten Steinkohlenbergbaus zum Jahr 2018 (Steinkohlefinanzierungsgesetz) vom 20. Dezember 2007

Rahmenvereinbarung „Sozialverträgliche Beendigung des subventionierten Steinkohlenbergbaus in Deutschland“ vom 14. August 2007

Kohlerichtlinien des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Technologie vom 28. Dezember 2007

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Sectoral development, Regional development, Employment

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 2 018 million

Intensity

—

Duration (period)

1.1.2010-31.12.2010

Economic sectors

Coal

Name and address of the granting authority

Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle

Frankfurter Str. 29—35

65760 Eschborn

DEUTSCHLAND

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
#### Terrance James BURKE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael MARTEL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 08-16187.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 5, 2010.

Terrance James Burke, lone, CA, pro se.

Catherine Chatman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Terrance James Burke appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and we affirm.

Burke contends that he was entitled to equitable tolling due to his reliance on *Dictado v. Ducharme,*244 F.3d 724, 726, 727-28 (9th Cir.2001), *abrogated by Pace v. DiGuglielmo,*544 U.S. 408, 414, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005). In the alternative, Burke seeks an evidentiary hearing on his claim to equitable tolling.

Reliance on circuit precedent subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court can constitute an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling. *See Harris v. Carter,*515 F.3d 1051, 1054, 1057 (9th Cir.2008); *see also Townsend v. Knowles,*562 F.3d 1200, 1205-06 (9th Cir.2009). In order to establish entitlement to such tolling, however, Burke must show that he was diligent in pursuing post-conviction relief. *See Holland v. Florida,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2549, 2562, 177 L.Ed.2d 130 (2010).

Burke contends that he was diligent in pursuing his state post-conviction remedies, given personal and health problems, as well as constraints on his law library access. Accepting as true that Burke in *197fact relied on *Dictado,*and crediting the veracity of his explanations for delays in filing each of his three state habeas petitions, Burke nonetheless fails to demonstrate the requisite diligence. In particular, Burke fails to account for periods of time during which he was unimpeded by the burdens that he cites as justifying the lengthy delays between filings. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on the tolling question, as the facts, even if established as true, do not demonstrate the necessary diligence. *Cf. Harris,*515 F.3d at 1052-54; *Townsend,*562 F.3d at 1203.

Absent equitable tolling, Burke’s federal habeas petition was filed two years and nine months beyond the AEDPA deadline. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition as untimely was correct.

We construe Burke’s additional contentions with respect to *Thorson v. Palmer,*479 F.3d 643 (9th Cir.2007), and *In re Robbins,*18 Cal.4th 770, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 153, 959 P.2d 311 (Cal.1998), as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability, and we deny the motion. *See Newdow v. Lefevre,*598 F.3d 638, 644 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 908 

AN ACT 

To amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 

Act of 1994 to reauthorize the Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program. 

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

•HR 908 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Missing Alzheimer’s 

3 Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MISSING ALZHEIMER’S 

5 DISEASE PATIENT ALERT PROGRAM. 

6 Section 240001 of the Violent Crime Control and 

7 Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14181) is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as fol10 lows: 

11 ‘‘(a) GRANT.—Subject to the availability of appro12 priations to carry out this section, the Attorney General, 

13 through the Bureau of Justice Assistance and in consulta14 tion with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

15 shall award competitive grants to nonprofit organizations 

16 to assist such organizations in paying for the costs of plan17 ning, designing, establishing, and operating locally based, 

18 proactive programs to protect and locate missing patients 

19 with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias and other 

20 missing elderly individuals.’’; 

21 (2) in subsection (b)— 

22 (A) by inserting ‘‘competitive’’ after ‘‘to re23 ceive a’’; and 

24 (B) by adding at the end the following new 

25 sentence: ‘‘The Attorney General shall periodi26 cally solicit applications for grants under this 
3 

•HR 908 EH

1 section by publishing a request for applications 

2 in the Federal Register and by posting such a 

3 request on the website of the Department of 

4 Justice.’’; 

5 (3) by amending subsection (c) to read as fol6 lows: 

7 ‘‘(c) PREFERENCE.—In awarding grants under sub8 section (a), the Attorney General shall give preference to 

9 national nonprofit organizations that have a direct link to 

10 patients, and families of patients, with Alzheimer’s disease 

11 and related dementias.’’; and 

12 (4) by amending subsection (d) to read as fol13 lows: 

14 ‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

15 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

16 $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 

17 2016.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 10, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 908 

AN ACT 

To amend the Violent Crime Control and Law EnAlzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program. forcement Act of 1994 to reauthorize the Missing
# C_2010330EN.01001201.xml

| 8.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/12

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2010/C 330/10

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will shortly expire.

1

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (2) on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

2

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) | People’s Republic of China
  Russia | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1987/2005 (OJ L 320, 8.12.2005, p. 1) | 9.12.2010 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)

People’s Republic of China

Russia

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1987/2005 (OJ L 320, 8.12.2005, p. 1)

9.12.2010

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 11.5.2010, p. 11.

1

(2)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

2

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2403 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2403

   To require agencies to ensure that menstrual hygiene products are 
   stocked in, and available free of charge in, restrooms in public 
                   buildings, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2019

   Ms. Meng introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require agencies to ensure that menstrual hygiene products are 
   stocked in, and available free of charge in, restrooms in public 
                   buildings, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Menstrual Hygiene Products in 
Federal Buildings Act''.

SEC. 2. MENSTRUAL HYGIENE PRODUCTS IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS.

    (a) Requirement.--The head of each agency shall ensure that 
menstrual hygiene products are stocked in, and available free of charge 
in, each covered restroom in each covered public building under the 
jurisdiction of such agency.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following definitions apply:
            (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given such 
        term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
            (2) Covered public building.--The term ``covered public 
        building'' means a public building (as defined in section 3301 
        of title 40, United States Code) that is open to the public and 
        contains a restroom, and includes a building listed in section 
        6301 or 5101 of such title.
            (3) Covered restroom.--The term ``covered restroom'' means 
        each restroom in a covered public building except for a 
        restroom designated solely for use by men.
            (4) Menstrual hygiene products.--The term ``menstrual 
        hygiene products'' means sanitary napkins and tampons. All 
        items must conform to applicable industry standards.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ralph Hall, Appellant, v Jacoby and Meyers Law Offices, Inc., Respondent.

Submitted March 22, 2010;

decided June 3, 2010

Motion for reargument denied *[see*14 NY3d 757 (2010)].
**Exhibit 15.2**
**Consent of KPMG Actuaries Pty Ltd (“KPMG Actuaries”) in relation to Form 20-F filing**
We hereby consent to your references to KPMG Actuaries Pty Ltd (“KPMG Actuaries”) and to ouractuarial valuation report effective as of March 31, 2005, dated May 14, 2004 (the “Report”), andto make use of, or quote, information and analyses contained within that Report for the purpose ofJames Hardie Industries N.V.’s (“JHI NV”) Annual Report on Form 20-F for fiscal year ended March31, 2005.
In addition, we hereby consent to your references to past actuarial valuations performed by KPMGActuaries for the purpose of JHI NV’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for fiscal year ended March 31,2005.
Your attention is drawn to the Important Note at the beginning of the Executive Summary and Section1 of the Report.
/s/ Richard Wilkinson
Richard Wilkinson BSc FIA FIAA
Director
KPMG Actuaries Pty Ltd
Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries (London)
Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries of Australia
Sydney, Australia
June 30, 2005
EXHIBIT 32





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 Quarterly Report of Monarch Investment Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, David Miller, President and Principal Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to our knowledge, 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.





/s/ Philip BloomPrincipal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting OfficerDate: April 29, 2011/s/ David MillerPresident and Principal Executive OfficerDate: April 29, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-0844

_____________________________

AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP;

AMERICAN AIRLINES and

SEDGWICK CMS,

Appellants,

v.

JONATHAN IBERO,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Edward Almeyda, Judge.

Date of Accident: October 22, 2016. 

September 19, 2019

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., and LEWIS and BILBREY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.
2

_____________________________

Michael A. Hernandez of Jones, Hurley & Hand, P.A., Miami, for 

Appellants.

Toni L. Villaverde of Toni L. Villaverde, PLLC, Coral Gables, for 

Appellee.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1313

Crude Oil Fixed Swap - Argus WTI Houston - Argus Media TMA

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the monthly price published by Argus Media for the 

location specified in Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month is equal to the arithmetic average of the Argus Media

Argus WTI Houston price for the trade month period beginning with the first business day after 

the 25th calendar day two months prior to the contract month through the last business day 

that falls on or before the 25th calendar day of the month prior to the contract month. If the 

25th calendar day is a weekend or holiday, the Trade month period shall end on the first 

business day prior to the 25th calendar day.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be in barrels. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity in 

barrels multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods

PRICING AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per barrel. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.01 per barrel. The minimum price increment will be $0.001. There shall be no maximum 

price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.
#### Kimberly Hurrell-Harring et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v State of New York et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 16, 2010;

decided February 18, 2010

Motion by Innocence Project for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
# C_2010078EN.01000101.xml

| 27.3.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/1

---

Communication from the Commission — Termination of appointment of Hearing Officer

2010/C 78/01

On 17 February 2010, the Commission appointed Ms Karen WILLIAMS to the post of Director of Investigation and Discipline Office of the Commission (IDOC), a directorate within the Directorate-General Human Resources and Security. Upon the taking up of these duties on 1 March 2010 Ms WILLIAMS terminated her functions as Hearing Officer as set out in Commission Decision of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition cases (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21.

1

---
#### In the Matter of Brendan N., a Neglected Child. Columbia County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Arthur N., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Janet N. et al., Appellants, v Arthur N. et al., Respondents. (Proceeding No. 2.)

Submitted April 26, 2010;

decided June 17, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.