alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2  Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Securities and Exchange Commission Release 34-46427  I, Nhuyen Van Thong, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Develocap, Inc.;  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 quarterly 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 quarterly 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we 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 quarterly 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;  c) disclosed in this report any change in registrant's internal control over financial reporting the 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 officers 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 deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: November 23, 2009/s/ Nguyen Van ThongNguyen Van ThongChief Financial Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3976 

To provide for a lifetime National Recreational Pass for any veteran with 

a service-connected disability, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2014 

Mr. RUIZ (for himself, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr. STEWART, Mr. HORSFORD, 

Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. HONDA, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mrs. NOEM, Mr. ISRAEL, 

Mr. BENISHEK, Ms. CHU, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. WALZ, 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N of New Mexico, Ms. 

BORDALLO, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. TAKANO, and Mr. KIND) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for a lifetime National Recreational Pass for 

any veteran with a service-connected disability, 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 ‘‘Wounded Veterans 

5 Recreation Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3976 IH

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL RECREATIONAL PASSES FOR DISABLED 

2 VETERANS. 

3 Section 805(b)(2) of the Federal Lands Recreation 

4 Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6804(b)(2)) is amended as 

5 follows: 

6 (1) By inserting ‘‘and for the lifetime of the 

7 passholder’’ after ‘‘without charge’’. 

8 (2) By striking ‘‘charge, to’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘charge, to the following:’’. 

10 (3) By striking ‘‘any United States’’ and insert11 ing the following: 

12 ‘‘(A) Any United States’’. 

13 (4) By inserting after ‘‘residency.’’ the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(B) Any veteran with a service-connected 

16 disability, as defined in section 101 of title 38, 

17 United States Code.’’. 

18 (5) By striking the last sentence. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2008037EN.01001802.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/18

---

Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-543/07)

(2008/C 37/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the Directive into national law expired on 5 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15.

1

---
----

Action brought on 22 May 2006 — Pereira Sequeira v Commission

(Case F-65/06)

(2006/C 165/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rosa Maria Pereira Sequeira (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a successful candidate of the internal competition COM/PC/04, published before the new Staff Regulations entered into force. She was appointed an official thereunder and classified in grade C*1, that is, the same grade in which she had been classified during her last temporary agent contract. Although previously she had enjoyed a more advantageous classification, she had been downgraded to grade C*1 prior to her appointment as an official.

In support of her action, the applicant alleges breach of Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 5 and 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

The applicant also alleges violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of protection of acquired rights.

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors
CKE Restaurants, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
333-83666, 333-76884, 333-41266, 333-83601, 33-56313, 33-55337, 333-12399,
33-53089-01, 2-86142-01, 33-31190-01, 333-75880, and 33-111284)) of CKE
Restaurants, Inc. of our report dated April 21, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of CKE Restaurants, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
January 31, 2005 and 2004 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended January 31, 2005, which report appears in the January 31, 2005
Annual Report on Form 10-K of CKE Restaurants, Inc. and subsidiaries.

As discussed in note 1 of the notes to consolidated financial statements, the
consolidated financial statements for all periods presented have been restated.

Our report refers to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets" and Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 146, "Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or
Disposal Activities", during the first and fourth quarters of fiscal 2003,
respectively.


                                                  /s/ KPMG LLP


Orange County, California
April 21, 2005
# CE2004088EN.01011201.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/112 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/112

---

(2004/C 88 E/0117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject:   Slovakia

Subject:

Does the Commission agree that, where possible, frontier and customs officials should be able to speak the language of the neighbouring country whose border they are supervising? Is the Commission aware that Slovak border officials on the frontier with Austria refuse to speak German, or indeed any language other than Slovak or Russian?

In view of Slovakia's imminent accession to the EU, will the Commission encourage Slovakia, and indeed all Member States, to ensure that at least some frontier officials are able to converse in languages likely to be useful on the frontier concerned?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2003)

(8 October 2003)

The Commission agrees that, whenever possible, customs officials both in the Union and in the candidate countries should be able to communicate in the language of the neighbouring country whose border they are supervising. With reference to candidate countries, the Commission has been advising their Customs Administrations to provide language training to customs officials. However, the administrative and organisational aspects of the customs services do not fall within the Commission's competence and are fully within the national competence of the existing and future Member States.

As for the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not aware of any specific problem, neither as regards customs officials nor border guards. Indeed co-operation between Slovak and Austrian authorities at the border is considered as satisfactory. Concerning customs, it is also worth stressing that, as from the day of accession in 2004, all customs controls between the existing and future Member States will be abolished and customs offices at the future ‘internal’ border will have to be dismantled by that date. Consequently, there will be no more presence of customs officials between Slovakia and Austria, and Slovakia will only manage part of the future Union external border with Ukraine.

---
Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC, et al

429PA13-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2016

John M. Moye, Attorney at Law, Adam H. Charnes, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Attorney at Law, Richard D. Dietz, Attorney at Law, Catharine B. Arrowood, Attorney at Law, Scott E. Bayzle, Attorney at Law, Catherine R.L. Lawson, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Scenera Research, LLC, et al.

Walter E. Brock, Jr., Attorney at Law, Andrew P. Flynt, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Patrick M. Aul, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Morris, Robert Paul.

Richard A. Coughlin, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for N.C. Chamber and N.C. Assoc. of Defense Attorneys.

Matthew Nis Leerberg, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. State University.

John R. Wester, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Gary A. Bornstein, Attorney at Law, Thomas Holderness, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Qualcomm Incorporated, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of June 20 16 by Plaintiff in the Alternative to Issue a Mandate Remanding this Motion to the Trial Court for Further Proceedings:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of June 2016."
STATE of North Carolina v. Kwmaine Deleon RAINEY.

No. COA15-307.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137290 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

_________________________________________ Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

In re DESMOND RAYMOND WADE and 

DEMITRIUS EDDIE WADE, Minors. 

_________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 137290 

 COA: 283902 

Oakland CC Family Division:

06-724963-NA 

RONALD WADE 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2008 

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. 

s0923 

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 26, 2008 

Clerk
EXHIBIT 22.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

                                    (Revised)

The following are subsidiaries of Trans Energy, Inc.:

         o    Arvilla,  Inc., a Nevada corporation,  100% owned by Trans Energy,
              Inc.

         o    Cobham Gas Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, 100% owned by
              Prima Oil Company,  Inc. that is 100% owned by Trans Energy,  Inc.
              Cobham  owns  two  subsidiaries,  Penine  Resources,  and  Belmont
              Energy, Inc.

         o    Prima Oil  Company,  Inc.  a Delaware  corporation,  100% owned by
              Trans Energy, Inc.

         o    Ritchie   County   Gathering   Systems,   Inc.  a  West   Virginia
              corporation, 100% owned by Trans Energy, Inc.

         o    Tyler  Construction  Company,  Inc., a West Virginia  corporation,
              100% owned by Trans Energy, Inc.

         o    Tyler  Energy,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation  100% owned by Trans
              Energy
Chamberlain v. Bray

39P14-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Robert S. Chamberlain, for Chamberlain, Robert S.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of June 2016 by Petitioner for Petition/ Grievance/Complaint:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."
# C_2009032EN.01000502.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Freistaat Sachsen

(Case C-334/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Proposed scheme for aid to small and medium-sized enterprises - Compatibility with the common market - Criteria for assessing State aid - Application ratione temporis - Proposed scheme notified before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 - Decision subsequent to entry into force thereof - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Complete notifications)

ratione temporis

(2009/C 32/09)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross, acting as Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Freistaat Sachsen (represented by: Th. Lübbig, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 3 May 2007 in Case T-357/02 Freistaat Sachsen v Commission by which the Court annulled in part Commission Decision 2003/226/EC of 24 September 2002 on an aid scheme which the Federal Republic of Germany is planning to implement — ‘Guidelines on assistance for SMEs — Improving business efficiency in Saxony’: Subprogrammes 1 (Coaching), 4 (Participation in fairs), 5 (Cooperation) and 7 (Design promotion) (OJ 2003 L 91, p. 13) — Applicability of Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises for aid projects notified to the Commission before the entry into force of that regulation

Freistaat Sachsen

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 3 May 2007 in Case T-357/02 Freistaat Sachsen v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 3 May 2007 in Case T-357/02 Freistaat Sachsen v Commission;

Freistaat Sachsen

Commission

| 2. | Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

| 3. | Reserves costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136027(22) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

BOB TURNER, INC., Justices 

Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellant, 

v SC: 136027 

 COA: 279850 

Oakland CC: 2007-008607-AV 

52-3 DC: 06-C03129-GC 

WALTER FRISBEE and LINDA FRISBEE,

Defendants/Counter-PlaintiffsAppellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 23, 2008 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50315

Summary Calendar

WILLIAM E JOHNSON, also known as Willie Johnson, also known as Willie E

Johnson

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICEINSTITUTIONAL DIVISION TIME CALCULATION DEPARTMENT; BOARD

OF PARDONS AND PAROLES; TEXAS LEGISLATURE

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CV-168

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William E. Johnson, Texas prisoner # 493576, is appealing the district

court’s dismissal of his petition for mandamus,the denial of his motion to recuse

the district court judge from presiding over the case, and the denial as moot of

his motion for preliminary injunction seeking an immediate release from prison.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50315

2

Johnson’s motion for recusal was based solely on his conclusional

allegations. He has not provided any appellate court case number or a copy of

this court’s order that he alleges contained a finding of bias on the part of the

district court judge. Nor has he provided any other evidence that indicated that

the district court was biased against him. Johnson has therefore shown no

abuse of discretion with regard to the denial of his motion to recuse. See 28

U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 144; Matassarin v. Lynch, 174 F.3d 549, 571

(5th Cir. 1999).

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s petition for mandamus

because federal courts have “no general power to issue writs of mandamus to

direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.”

Lamar v. 118th Judicial Dist. Court of Tex., 440 F.2d 383, 384 (5th Cir. 1971).

Insofar as Johnson’s motion for a preliminary injunction sought an order

for his immediate release, the denial of the motion is affirmed because Johnson

must pursue this remedy in a habeas proceeding. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544

U.S. 74, 81 (2005). Johnson’s motion for a writ of supersedeus is denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
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 Develocap, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen B. Schneer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.   /s/ Stephen B. Schneer Stephen B. Schneer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer December 13, 2007
STATE v. Reginal FULLARD.

No. 455P14-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Reginald Fullard, Lumberton, for Fullard, Reginald.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of November 2015 by Defendant to Withdraw Unconstitutionally Construed Instrument that Violates Due Process:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135969 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 135969 

 COA: 280064 

Macomb CC: 01-003617-FC 

DION ARMAND ANTON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 8, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0828 

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 9, 2008 

 Clerk