alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a)I, Edward J. Puisis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-K of Dayton Superior Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.    May 15, 2006 /s/Edward J. Puisis     Edward J. Puisis
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

141261 

KIMBERLY FINLEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 141261 

 COA: 289437 

WCAC: 08-000069 

SAM’S CLUB and AMERICAN HOME 

ASSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 18, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
----

Action brought on 9 June 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-157/06)

(2006/C 190/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission. (1)

----

(1)OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 55.

----
Victor LEJI, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.

No. 16-9175.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 11, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Joseph Emil KLUG, petitioner, v. Nicole ENGLISH, Warden, et al.

No. 17-8111.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 16, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, IndependentAuditors**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-30280)pertaining to the iParty Corp. 1998 Incentive and Non-qualified Stock OptionPlan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-104127) pertainingto the Amended and Restated 1998 Incentive and Non-qualified Stock Option Planof iParty Corp. and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-139951)pertaining to the offer and sale of iParty Corp. common stock of our reportdated March 7, 2008 with respect to the consolidated financial statementsof iParty Corp. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended December 29, 2007.

 
|                  | /s/ Ernst &  Young LLP |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------|
|                  |                            |
|                  |
| Boston, Massachusetts |
| March 7, 2008    |

 

----
BONAFIDE MASONRY, 

RETAILFIRST INSURANCE 

COMPANY AND CLAIMS 

CENTER SUMMIT,

Appellants,

v.

RUSSELL R. SAXTON,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4833

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 5, 2015.

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

Ellen H. Lorenzen, Judge.

Date of Accident: February 10, 1988.

Mark S. Spangler of the Law Offices of Mark S. Spangler, P.A., Maitland, for 

Appellants.

Michael J. Winer of the Law Office of Michael J. Winer, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss this appeal of two nonfinal orders rendered by the Judge of 

Compensation Claims on September 3, 2014, and September 23, 2014, respectively. 
Appellants challenge the nonfinal orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 

9.180(b)(1)(A), which provides for appellate review of a nonfinal order adjudicating 

jurisdiction. Appellants, however, have failed to demonstrate that the September 23, 

2014, order denying its motion to dismiss “adjudicates” jurisdiction, as the term is 

used in Rule 9.180(b)(1)(A). In the order, the JCC specifically declined to rule on 

the jurisdictional question raised in Appellants’ motion, based on a lack of evidence. 

The JCC advised Appellants to file an evidentiary motion supporting its allegations, 

and rather than doing so, Appellants filed this premature appeal. Appellant also 

failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the rendition of the September 3, 2014, 

order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.

2
SHARP IMAGE GAMING, INC., petitioner, v. SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS.

No. 17-1330.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 25, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RAPHAEL CARRASCO, a.k.a. Rafael

Carrasco,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50423

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00730-ODW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 9, 2014** 

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Raphael Carrasco appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. 

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Carrasco’s counsel has filed

FILED

DEC 16 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief and has moved to withdraw as

counsel of record. We have provided Carrasco the opportunity to file a pro se

supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been

filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief on direct appeal; therefore,

we affirm the sentence. The record reflects that Carrasco pleaded guilty only to

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. 

Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it delete

from the judgment the reference to heroin.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED for correction of the judgment.

2 13-50423
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4089 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize certain students 

to retain financial aid eligibility while completing a drug rehabilitation 

program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 26, 2019 

Mr. FOSTER (for himself, Ms. MOORE, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. MOULTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize 

certain students to retain financial aid eligibility while 

completing a drug rehabilitation program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Chance for 

5 Students Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN CONVICTIONS. 

7 Section 484(r) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

8 (20 U.S.C. 1091(r)) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4089 IH

1 (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para2 graph (4); 

3 (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘A student’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘Subject to paragraph (3), a student’’; 

5 and 

6 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTION.—A student whose eligibility 

8 has been suspended under paragraph (1), or whose 

9 eligibility, in the absence of this paragraph, would 

10 have been suspended under paragraph (1), due to a 

11 conviction of an offense involving the possession of 

12 marijuana, without the intent to distribute, may re13 sume or retain eligibility before the end of the ineli14 gibility period (or the period that would have been 

15 the ineligibility period) determined under such para16 graph during the period of completion of a drug re17 habilitation program described in subparagraph (A) 

18 or (B) of paragraph (2), except that such period of 

19 completion shall not exceed 6 months.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Ashley SVEEN, et al., petitioners, v. Kaye MELIN, et al.

No. 16-1432.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 8, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit granted.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4232 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure the ability to enforce 

State and local law relating to leasing and renting of real property, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 

Mr. CASE (for himself and Mr. KING of New York) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure the 

ability to enforce State and local law relating to leasing 

and renting of real property, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Local Au5 thority and Neighborhoods Act’’ or the ‘‘PLAN Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4232 IH

1 SEC. 2. ENSURING ABILITY TO ENFORCE STATE AND LOCAL 

2 LAW RELATING TO LEASING AND RENTING 

3 OF REAL PROPERTY. 

4 (a) NO EFFECT OF COMMUNICATIONS LAW ON

5 CLAIMS REGARDING LEASE OR RENTAL OF REAL PROP6 ERTY.—Section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 

7 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following: 

9 ‘‘(3) NO EFFECT ON CLAIMS REGARDING LEASE

10 OR RENTAL OF REAL PROPERTY.—Paragraph (1) 

11 shall not apply to any claim in a civil action under 

12 State law asserted after the date of the enactment 

13 of this paragraph against a provider of an inter14 active computer service if— 

15 ‘‘(A) the claimant alleges such provider fa16 cilitated the lease or rental of real property in 

17 a circumstance in which a law or contractual 

18 agreement restricts such lease or rental; 

19 ‘‘(B) the claimant provides written notice 

20 of the alleged violation to such provider; and 

21 ‘‘(C) such provider fails to cure the alleged 

22 violation within 30 days after the date on which 

23 such provider receives such notice.’’. 

24 (b) NO EFFECT OF COMMUNICATIONS LAW ON REAL

25 PROPERTY LEASING OR RENTAL REQUIREMENTS AND

26 PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS.—Section 230(e) of 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4232 IH

1 the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)) is 

2 amended by adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(6) NO EFFECT ON REAL PROPERTY LEASING

4 OR RENTAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROTECTION OF

5 PROPERTY RIGHTS.—Nothing in this section (other 

6 than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to pre7 vent any State or unit of local government from en8 forcing a law that restricts any provider of an inter9 active computer service from facilitating the lease or 

10 rental of real property.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 22586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08061]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94681; File No. SR-PEARL-2022-05]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL LLC; Notice of 
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX PEARL Options Fee 
Schedule To Remove Certain Credits and Increase Trading Permit Fees

April 11, 2022.
    On February 15, 2022, MIAX PEARL LLC (``MIAX Pearl'' or 
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a 
proposed rule change to amend the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule to 
remove certain credits and increase the monthly Trading Permit fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing with 
the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ On 
February 25, 2022, the proposed rule change was published for comment 
in the Federal Register and, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the 
Act,\4\ the Commission: (1) Temporarily suspended the proposed rule 
change; and (2) instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule 
change.\6\ On March 30, 2022, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule 
change (SR-PEARL-2022-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take 
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the 
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge 
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether 
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.'' 
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94287 (February 18, 
2022), 87 FR 10837.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, 
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08061 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
John Cameron CAIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5771.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2


                                  CERTIFICATION


I, John B. Sawyer, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Renegade Venture
     (NEV.) Corporation.

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 annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
     annual report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
          entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
          report is being prepared;

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

     c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
     committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
     equivalent functions):

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
     quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal
     controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
     controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including
     any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
     weaknesses.

Date: August 14, 2004


/s/  John B. Sawyer
-----------------------------------
     John B. Sawyer, President
     and COO
Release: #4161-98 (CFTC Docket No.
    93-5)

For Release: June 30,
    1998

CFTC ACCEPTS SETTLEMENT OFFER
    OF LAWRENCE J. BILELLO

Settlement Agreement Revokes
    Bilello's Registration with the CFTC and

Orders Him to Pay a $200,000
    Civil Penalty, Among Other Sanctions

WASHINGTON � The Commodity
    Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced today that it issued an order
    accepting an offer of settlement from Lawrence J. Bilello, to
    resolve an administrative proceeding initiated by the CFTC on March 2, 1993
    (see CFTC News Release #3633-98, March 2, 1993).

The CFTC order, filed on June 26,
    1998, finds that Bilello, a registered floor broker on the Commodity
    Exchange, Inc., violated provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and
    CFTC regulations prohibiting: fraudulent activity in connection with the
    execution or reporting of a trade; wash sales; fictitious sales; causing
    the reporting of non bona fide prices; and noncompetitive
    trading.

In addition, the CFTC order finds
    that Bilello participated in noncompetitive trades with floor brokers and
    floor traders involving customer orders. In certain trade sequences,
    Bilello indirectly bucketed a customer order, while in others, he used a
    customer order for one contract month to facilitate a trade for himself in
    another contract month. In addition, in two instances, he changed the price
    of a trade to a customer's detriment. The CFTC order further finds
    that Bilello engaged in noncompetitive wash sales in which money was passed
    between Bilello and another broker or trader.

Bilello, without admitting or
    denying the findings, consented to the entry of the order:

-- finding that he engaged in
      fraudulent activity, made false reports, and bucketed (section 4b(a) of
      the CEA and CFTC regulation 1.38); and engaged in wash sales, fictitious
      sales, and caused prices to be reported that were not true and bona
      fide (sections 4c(A) and 4c(B) of the CEA); -- directing him to cease and
      desist from further violations; -- revoking his
      registration; -- imposing a three-year
      personal trading ban; and -- directing him to pay a
      $200,000 civil monetary penalty.


Under the settlement, Bilello also
    agreed never to seek registration with the CFTC in any capacity.

�