alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
I, Michael P. Huseby, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CCO Holdings, LLC and CCO Capital Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich 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 thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrants as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrants and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrants,including their consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) [Reserved]; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrants’ disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrants’ internal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrants’ most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrants’ fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrants’ internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants’ auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrants’ board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrants’ ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrants’internal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 13, 2004 /s/ Michael P. HusebyMichael P. HusebyChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
Independent Auditors' Report


To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
the Capital Appreciation Fund:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of the Capital Appreciation Fund (the Fund) for the year ended
December 31, 2002, we considered its internal control, including
control activities for safeguarding securities, in order to
determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing
our opinion on the financial statements and to comply with the
requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on internal
control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Those controls include the safeguarding of assets against
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a
timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving
internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities, that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above as of December 31, 2002.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Trustees of the Fund and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and
should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.



                                             KPMG LLP
New York, New York
February 12, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>       5

<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from UTG
Communications International, Inc. and Subsidiaries and is qualified in it's
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>



<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              29,580
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,825,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                       526,390
<INVENTORY>                                      1,269,166
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,389,622
<PP&E>                                           4,434,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,929,618
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,222,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,534,596
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                38
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,929,716
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,222,532
<SALES>                                         15,566,213
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,566,213
<CGS>                                           12,895,580
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,573,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (305,224)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   145,490
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 159,734
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,538,853)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,538,853)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (106,547)
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,645,400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (1.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.25)





</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



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 Ammex Gold Mining Corp.  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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 operation of the Company.



3.  A signed original 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.









Date:  February 16, 2007



By: /s/ Christopher Crupi

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

Christopher Crupi

Chief Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6010** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.

MICHAEL F. MATTHEWS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr
- 00226

- REP

- 1 )

Submitted : March 1 7 , 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael F. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michael F. Matthews appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the distri ct court. United States v.

Matthews , No. 3:07

– cr
– 00226

– REP

– 1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 8, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisio nal process.

AFFIRMED
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4942 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on crank-gear and parts thereof. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2008 

Mr. BLUMENAUER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on crank-gear 

and parts thereof. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CRANK-GEAR AND PARTS THEREOF. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.70 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 crank-gear and parts thereof) is amended by striking ‘‘12/ 

7 31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4942 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
Order entered November 19, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00018 - CR RICHARD CLAYTON KIMB ERLIN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from t he 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199 - 80175 - 2016



### O RDER Before the Court is the State’s November 16, 2018 motion for extension of time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief received on Novemb er 16, 2018 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Dismiss and Opinion Filed December 18, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01077-CV
RONE ENGINEERING SERVICES, LTD., Appellant

V.

DELTEK, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-01839



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Francis
Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1, appellant has f iled a motion requesting
the Court dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss
the appeal. See id.

151077F.P05
/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RONE ENGINEERING SERVICES, LTD., Appellant

No. 05-15-01077-CV V.
DELTEK, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-01839. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. Justices Evans and Stod dart participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER appellee Deltek, Inc. recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Rone Engineering Services, Ltd.

Judgment entered December 18, 2015.
SMITH BARNEY INCOME FUNDS
on behalf of 
SMITH BARNEY UTILITIES FUND (the "Fund")

Supplement dated February 27, 1998 to
Prospectus dated November 28, 1997


	On February 27, 1998, the Board of Trustees of Smith Barney 
Income Funds, on the recommendation of the Fund's investment 
adviser, voted in favor of the following changes and instructed 
that they be submitted to the Fund's shareholders for their 
approval at a meeting scheduled to be held on or about May 7, 
1998:

1)	Changing the Fund's investment objective so that income 
and capital appreciation receive equal consideration; and

2)	Changing the Fund's investment policies by imposing a 
target asset allocation of approximately 60% in equity 
securities and approximately 40% in fixed-income 
securities while no longer requiring the Fund to invest 
in equity and debt securities of companies in the 
utilities industry.

If the foregoing changes are approved by shareholders, the 
Board of Trustees has voted to implement these additional changes 
which do not require shareholder consideration:

A)	Increasing the portion of the Fund's assets invested in 
high yield securities from a maximum of 10% to a maximum 
of  25%; and

B)	Changing the Fund's name to the Smith Barney Balanced 
Fund.




FD 01421
HomeOcean Facts

# What is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?

## The "garbage patch"  is a popular name for  concentrations of marine debris  in the North Pacific Ocean.

 While "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" is a  term often used by the media, it does not paint an accurate picture of the marine debris problem in the North Pacific ocean. Marine debris concentrates in various regions of  the North Pacific, not just in one area. The exact size, content, and location of the "garbage patches" are difficult to accurately predict. 

The name "Pacific Garbage Patch" has led many to believe that this area is a large and continuous patch of easily visible marine debris items such as bottles and other litter—akin to a literal island of trash that should be visible with satellite or aerial photographs. This is not the case. While higher concentrations of litter items can be found in this area, much of the debris is actually small pieces of floating plastic that are not immediately evident to the naked eye. 

Ocean debris is continuously mixed by wind and wave action and widely dispersed both over huge surface areas and throughout the top portion of the water column. It is possible to sail through "garbage patch" areas in the Pacific and see very little or no debris on the water's surface. It is also difficult to estimate the size of these "patches," because the borders and content constantly change with ocean currents and winds. Regardless of the exact size, mass, and location of the "garbage patch," manmade debris does not belong in our oceans and waterways and must be addressed.

Debris found in any region of the ocean can easily be ingested by marine species  causing choking, starvation, and other impairments. 

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          - NOAA Marine Debris Program
          - The Great Pacific Garbage Patch: Science vs. Myth
          - What is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? (audio podcast)
          - Marine Debris (audio podcast)

**Last updated:**   01/18/24**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
<PAGE>




                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

                            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 Millennium Chemicals Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2004 as amended by Form 10-K/A
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert E. Lee, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 'SS'1350, as adopted pursuant to
'SS'906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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.


Dated: April 27, 2004

                                /s/ Robert E. Lee
                       -----------------------------------
                                  Robert E. Lee
                      President and Chief Executive Officer


This certification, which is required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, is "furnished" to the Securities and Exchange Commission in accordance
with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K, 17 CFR 229.601(b)(32)(ii).
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                     
<ARTICLE>                             5
<MULTIPLIER>                          1,000,000
                                           
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                            103
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     245
<ALLOWANCES>                                        3
<INVENTORY>                                       334
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  936
<PP&E>                                           1644
<DEPRECIATION>                                    600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             379
<BONDS>                                          1039
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            1
<OTHER-SE>                                       1577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4100
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1597
<CGS>                                            1134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   29
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   40
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 72
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   202
<INCOME-TAX>                                       37
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               165
<DISCONTINUED>                                      1
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (2) 
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      164
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    2.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2.17
        
 

</TABLE>
STATE v. BROOKS

No. COA04-98

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed October 19, 2004

Certification Date November 8, 2004

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE of North Carolina v. Benjamin Graham NYE.

No. 245P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

William H. Dowdy, for Benjamin Graham Nye.

Dahr Joseph Tanoury, Assistant Attorney General, Rex Gore, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 24th day of May 2004 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of May 2004 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> 
*373
"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Intermediate Municipal Fund, Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated February 8, 1999, with 
respect to the Smith Barney Intermediate Municipal Fund, Inc., 
incorporated herein by reference and to the references to our 
Firm under the headings "Financial Highlights" and "Independent 
Auditors" in the Prospectus.



	KPMG  LLP


New York, New York
March 15, 1999
Maxine ELLIOTT v. Estate of Garnet Douglas ELLIOTT, Jr., Maxine Jayne Elliott, Executrix.

No. 226P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

Roger Lee Edwards, Oak Island, for Estate of Garnet Elliott, Jr.

Gary S. Lawrence, Raleigh, for Maxine Elliott.

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th day of May 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."
STATE v. COPELAND

No. COA04-534.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 1, 2005.

Certification Date March 21, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. No error.