alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Randy S. Leiser, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kitty Hawk, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        May 9, 2005 By:  /s/ RANDY S. LEISER    Randy S. Leiser    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), the undersigned,
Milton A. Alpern, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

Dated: August 13, 2004               /s/ Milton A. Alpern
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Milton A. Alpern
                                     Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3634 

To make loans and loan guarantees under section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 available for implementing 

positive train control systems, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 3, 2013 

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York (for himself, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. 

TONKO, and Mr. CROWLEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To make loans and loan guarantees under section 502 of 

the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act 

of 1976 available for implementing positive train control 

systems, 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 ‘‘Commuter Rail Pas5 senger Safety Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3634 IH

1 SEC. 2. POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL SYSTEMS. 

2 Section 502(b)(1) of the Railroad Revitalization and 

3 Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (45 U.S.C. 822(b)(1)), 

4 is amended— 

5 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘or’’; 

6 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘facili7 ties.’’ and inserting ‘‘facilities; or’’; and 

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

9 ‘‘(D) implement a positive train control 

10 system, as required by section 20157 of title 

11 49, United States Code.’’. 

12 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF RAILROAD SAFETY TECHNOLOGY 

13 GRANTS. 

14 Section 20158(c) of title 49, United States Code, is 

15 amended— 

16 (1) by striking ‘‘$50,000,000’’ and inserting 

17 ‘‘$100,000,000’’; and 

18 (2) by striking ‘‘2009 through 2013’’ and in19 serting ‘‘2014 through 2018’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008008EN.01001402.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/14

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Castellani v OHIM — Markant Handels und Service (CASTELLANI)

(Case T-149/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark CASTELLANI - Earlier national word marks CASTELLUM and CASTELLUCA - Relative ground of refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 8/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Castellani SpA (Campagna Gello, Italy) (represented by: A. Di Maso and M. Di Maso, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, agent)

Defendant:

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Markant Handels und Service GmbH (Offenburg, Germany)

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 February 2006 (Case R 449/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Markant Handels und Service GmbH and Castellani SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 February 2006 (Case R 449/2005 1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 February 2006 (Case R 449/2005 1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

1

---
Local Government Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, v. Donna R. Disher, Defendant.

No. COA15-1402

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
# CE2004078EN.01043001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/430 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/430

---

(2004/C 78 E/0450)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2792/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Opportunities for aggressive speculation in emissions trading

Subject:

From 2008, national assigned amount units (AAU or BSA amounts) will be adjusted to take account of cross-border transfers of emission allowances so as to ensure that a selling country's AAU (BSA) amount is decreased and that of the buying country increased by the quantity transferred.

If, however, a cross-border transfer of emission allowances in the period beginning in 2008 is due to the fact that the allowances in question were originally just banked in the country concerned, the country of origin will obtain the amount of banked allowances twice over. Broadening out the problem onto a large scale, it is hard to believe, especially in the light of their governments' action, that the Member States will start to engage in speculative transfers of this kind, but any non-EU Annex I country (if it acceded to the Kyoto Protocol and joined the EU emissions trading scheme before 2007) or a company from such a country would be able, by proceeding as described above, to double the amount of allowances for sale. It will also be possible in a way to exploit market forces if emission allowances have been banked in a rival selling country (for instance in a transfer from Ukraine to Germany). The rival seller's market position will consequently be weakened, whereas the market player in question will benefit twice over.

Another typical form of aggressive speculation could occur if the kind of practice seen on the foreign exchange markets some years ago were to be repeated on the emissions trading market. In theory, a non-EU operator could thus hamper a competitor operating within the EU (and within the emissions trading scheme).

Has the Commission made plans to deal with aggressive speculation of this type in emissions trading? If so, what plans?

Does it still see no need for the idea of employing market intervention (using an EU central register, for example) to stabilise disturbances on the emissions trading market?

---
----

(2004/C 65 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2842/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject:   Introduction of deposit system for beverage packagings in Germany

Is the Commission aware of the leaked report by the independent German institute Prognos concerning the impact of the introduction in Germany of a deposit system for non-returnable beverage packagings (cost: up to EUR 1,2 billion and nearly 10 000 jobs)?

Does the Commission conclude from this that even greater efforts are needed to improve or secure the abolition of the German deposit system?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission's position on the German deposit system was explained in the replies given by the Commission on 3 July 2003 to Written Question E-1549/03 by Mr Manders (1) and on 29 August 2003 to Written Question E-2519/03 by the Honourable Member and Mrs Grossetête (2). Currently, measures are being prepared in Germany to introduce a return and collection system for one-way packaging affected by the German deposit system. The Commission is closely monitoring this process. The study mentioned by the Honourable Member will be taken into account in the assessment of the German system. Based on the results of this assessment, the Commission will not hesitate to take the appropriate action to ensure compliance with Community law.

----

(1)OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 192.

(2)OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 267.

----
STATE v. Eric Glenn LANE.

No. 606A05-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 16, 2015.

Daniel Shatz, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Lane, Eric Glenn.

Derrick Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Nicholaos Vlahos, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Matthew Delbridge, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of December 2015 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Prepare Trial Transcript:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of December 2015."

JACKSON, J. recused.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-37299, Form S-8 No. 333-74565 and Form S-8 No. 333-96197)
pertaining to the Renal Care Group, Inc. Fourth Amended and Restated 1996 Stock
Incentive Plan, the Renal Care Group, Inc. 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the
Dialysis Centers of America Inc. Equity Compensation Plan of our reports dated
February 24, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Renal Care Group, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 1999.



                                         /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
March 27, 2000
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David E. Ullman, 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 to the best of my knowledge:



|April 15, 2004 |  | /s/DAVID E. ULLMANDavid E. Ullman
Chief Financial Officer
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
**Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 –**

**Commission v Belgium**

**(Case C‐227/06)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – Measures having equivalent effect – Construction products – Directive 89/106/EEC – Absence of harmonised standards – National marks of conformity – Presumption of conformity

Free movement of goods – Quantitative restrictions – Measures having equivalent effect (Arts 28 EC and 30 EC) (see paras 52-69, operative part)

**Re:**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC – National law imposing a | de facto | obligation for economic operators wishing to market in Belgium construction products lawfully produced and/or marketed in another Member State to obtain Belgian marks of conformity in order to market those products in Belgium. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by encouraging economic operators wishing to market in Belgium construction products lawfully manufactured and/or marketed in another Member State to obtain Belgian marks of conformity, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
##### 



1)
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, 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(s) 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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal year 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(s) 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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ David P. Carlson
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136438 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

BRETTEN STONE , 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

v SC: 136438 Justices 

 COA: 275684 

WCAC: 05-000242 

R.W. LAPINE, INC., and ACCIDENT FUND 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 3, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and 

we REINSTATE the order of the Board of Magistrates. The Court of Appeals erred by 

approving the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission’s basis for modifying the 

magistrate’s benefit award. The WCAC exceeded its authority by substituting its own 

favorable view of the testimony of the plaintiff’s medical expert for the unfavorable 

assessment provided by the magistrate without providing a weighing of the proofs and an 

analysis as to why that expert’s credibility should be evaluated in a contrary manner. The 

WCAC also erred by shifting the burden of proving work-related injury from the 

plaintiff, where it belonged pursuant to MCL 418.851, to the defendants, by presuming 

the plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits upon the mere rejection of some of the magistrate’s 

numerous reasons for ruling in a contrary manner. In addition, the Court of Appeals 

erred by holding that the average weekly wage must be calculated pursuant to MCL 

418.371(3) in every instance where it can be determined using that subsection. The 

average weekly wage calculation provisions reveal “the Legislature’s overriding desire to 

have the basis for compensation reflect an accurate measure of wages.” Rowell v 

Security Steel Processing Co, 445 Mich 347, 356-357 (1994). In this case, the magistrate 

did not err in choosing to utilize MCL 418.371(6) to determine the plaintiff’s average 

weekly wage. 

KELLY, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

0910 

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. 

September 17, 2008 

 Clerk
# CE2004078EN.01040702.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/407 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/407

---

(2004/C 78 E/0429)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2537/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Net contribution to the common agricultural policy

Subject:

In the second report on economic and social cohesion in the EU the Commission stated that Portugal was a net contributor to the common agricultural policy (CAP).

In answer to my Written Question P-0897/01 (1) the Commission produced the figures on which it had based that assertion. According to the Commission, Portugal's net contribution to the CAP between 1989 and 1998 amounted to EUR 2 000 m, in other words over EUR 260 per inhabitant.

1

That being the case, can the Commission say whether Portugal is still a CAP net contributor? Using the same method as for the period between 1989 and 1998, can it supply updated figures for the period between 1998 and 2002?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

(29 October 2003)

With regard to the methodology for measuring the impact on Portugal of the agricultural price and market policy, which therefore does not consider rural development policy (second pillar), as used in the second cohesion report, it should be noted that this method takes into account welfare effects not only on agricultural producers and food processors, but also on consumers and taxpayers. In that sense, it differs from calculations based on net budget position but gives a more complete picture of the position of Portugal, with regard to the cost or gain to the Portuguese economy from the agricultural market policy (first pillar).

For the calculation of those figures, the Commission has focussed his efforts on compiling the data requested by the Honourable Member for the period 2000 to 2002, in order to monitor the changes as from the time of the implementation of the Agenda 2000.

Using the same method as for the period 1989 to 1998, the Commission can report that the annual net effect in that period, at current prices, is given as follows:

| (million euros) |
| --- |
| | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
| Net effect for Portugal | –227,1 | +4 | –108,7 |

(million euros)

2000

2001

2002

Net effect for Portugal

–227,1

+4

–108,7

In terms of budget transfer, calculated on the basis of the gain or loss from the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) — Guarantee budget relative to the percentage contribution to the total Union budget, the net position of Portugal, which has been positive since 1994, has had the following recent evolution:

| (million euros) |
| --- |
| | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
| Net budget transfer for Portugal | +74,7 | +221,6 | +115,8 |

(million euros)

2000

2001

2002

Net budget transfer for Portugal

+74,7

+221,6

+115,8

---

(1)  OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 213.

1

---