alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
31.2




CERTIFICATION




I,
Clayton Woodrum, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Chatsworth Data Solutions,
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; and




(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
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 the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:  December
      17, 2008
              /s/ Clayton WoodrumClayton
      WoodrumChief
      Financial Officer
**Exhibit
          32**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
          PURSUANT TO**
 **18
          U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
          ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
          906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
            connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of National Patent
            Development Corporation (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended September
            30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
            date
            hereof, (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company 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 the best of
            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 operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/
          JEROME I.
          FELDMAN
 Name:  Jerome
          I.
          Feldman
 Title:  Chief
          Executive Officer
 Date:  May
            31,
            2007
 
  /s/
          SCOTT N.
          GREENBERG
 Name:  Scott
          N.
          Greenberg
 Title:  Chief
          Financial Officer
 Date:  May
            31,
            2007
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 27, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00023

- CR

Erica Allen Cook, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICE S GOODWIN AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the written motion of the appellant to dismiss the appeal

and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the s ame should be

granted: it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the appellant is

allowed to withdraw his notice of appeal and that the appeal is dismissed; that the appellant pay

all costs relating to this appeal; and that this decision be ce rtified below for observance.
# C_2008209EN.01005102.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/51

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — AWWW v Eurofound

(Case T-211/07) (1)

1

(Public procurement - Community tendering procedure - Rejection of tender - Selection criteria - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons)

(2008/C 209/90)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AWWW GmbH ArbeitsWelt-Working World (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: B. Schreier, V. Wellens, lawyers, and G. Dennis, solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (represented by: C. Callanan, solicitor)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Eurofound of 17 April 2007 rejecting the applicant's tender in a community public procurement procedure for the provision of services of information and analysis on quality of work and employment, industrial relations and restructuring covering the European level

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders AWWW GmbH ArbeitsWelt-Working World to pay the costs, including those incurred in the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AWWW GmbH ArbeitsWelt-Working World to pay the costs, including those incurred in the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

1

---
a50911397ex10_3.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 


 



Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement


 


1.           This second amendment (the “Second Amendment”) is made by B/E Aerospace, Inc. (the “Company”) and Werner Lieberherr (“Executive”), parties to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated January 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”).


 


2.           The Agreement is amended as follows:


 


In the second sentence of Section 5(a) of the Agreement, the phrase “or (ii)” shall be deleted and replaced by the phrase “(ii) for purposes of Section 5(f), and following the occurrence of a Change of Control, the date of the Change of Control, or (iii)”.


 


3.           Except as set forth in this Second Amendment, the Agreement is unaffected and shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms, and any previous amendments thereto. If there is conflict between this Second Amendment and the Agreement or any earlier amendment, the terms of this Second Amendment will prevail.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment as of the date written below.


 











	
 

	
EXECUTIVE


	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Werner Lieberherr	 
	 	

Werner Lieberherr


	 	 
	 	Dated: 	May 12, 2014	 









 


 


 






	
 

	
B/E Aerospace, Inc.


	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Thomas P. McCaffrey	 
	 	


Thomas P. McCaffrey




	 	
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


	 	 
	 	Dated: 	May 12, 2014
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 19, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 05-30235

Summary Calendar

_____________________

GERALD BOURG, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

GERALD BOURG; REID SPANGLER;

MICHAEL SPEARS; JESSE MENDOZA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES CO.; ET AL,

Defendants,

UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES CO.; UNION

PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP, INC. 

SEVERANCE PLAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________

GERALD BOURG, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

GERALD BOURG; REID SPANGLER;

MICHAEL SPEARS; JESSE MENDOZA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES CO.; ANADARKO

PETROLEUM CORP.; ANADARKO ENERGY SERVICES

CO.; UNION PACIFIC RESOURCES GROUP, INC. 

SEVERANCE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR,
* 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.

2

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC Nos. 6:00-CV-622 and

6:00-CV-2269

__________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the

reasons given by that judge in her ruling of January 25, 2005.

AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136479 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136479 

 COA: 275083 

Wayne CC: 06-009250-02

COREY EDWARD FRAZIER,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 25, 2008 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1020 

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. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
NUMBER 13-07-00667-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

BRANDON SIEGFRIED, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. 

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Brandon Siegfried, attempted to appeal an order issued by the trial court

on September 24, 2007. On January 17, 2008, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant

that it appeared that the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable

order, and requested correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be

dismissed. Appellant has failed to respond to the Court’s directive. 
2

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 29th day of August, 2008.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3985 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3985

 To sunset funding under sections 1341 and 1342, and to repeal section 
1343, of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2014

 Mr. Westmoreland introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To sunset funding under sections 1341 and 1342, and to repeal section 
1343, of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Obamacare's Risky Provisions 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SUNSETTING FUNDING UNDER SECTIONS 1341 AND 1342, AND REPEALING 
              SECTION 1343, OF PPACA.

    (a) Sunsetting Section 1341.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law--
            (1) no payments may be required of health insurance issuers 
        and third-party administrators under section 1341 of the 
        Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18061) 
        for any period after December 31, 2014; and
            (2) payments shall be made to health insurance issuers 
        under such section only to the extent of available funds, as 
        limited under paragraph (1).
    (b) Sunsetting Section 1342.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, the risk corridor program under section 1342 of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18062) shall only apply 
for 2014 and shall not apply for 2015 or 2016.
    (c) Repealing Section 1343.--Section 1343 of the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18063) is repealed, effective for 
years after 2014.
                                 <all>
```
* 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. 08-50298

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PRESCILIANO AGUILAR-LOPEZ, also known as Presciliano Aguilar, also

known as Presiliano Lopez

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-671-ALL

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Presciliano Aguilar-Lopez

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 8, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
BOGER v. MCGEE

158P06-10

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Derrick D. Boger, For Boger, Derrick D.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann L. Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, For State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of January 2017 by Defendant for Tort Claim:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
# C_2009153EN.01000602.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — Waterford Wedgwood plc v Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-398/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark WATERFORD - Refusal to register by the Board of Appeal)

2009/C 153/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Waterford Wedgwood plc (represented by: J. Pagenberg, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Ltd (represented by: P. Hagman, asianajaja, and J. Palm, tavaramerkkiasiamies), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 in Case T-105/05 Assembled Investments (Proprietary) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) annulling Decision R 240/2004-1 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2004 which annulled the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition filed by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘WATERFORD’ in respect of goods in Classes 3, 8, 11, 21, 24 and 34

Assembled Investments (Proprietary)

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Waterford Wedgwood plc to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Waterford Wedgwood plc to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
In re: Skinner

277A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 10, 2017

Ira Braswell, IV, Attorney at Law, for Skinner, Mark.

Jenna F. Butler, Attorney at Law, Alexander C. Dale, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Clark, Nancy Bass, et al.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed on the 9th of January 2017 by Petitioners:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of January 2017."

Petitioners shall have up to and including the 24th day of January 2017 to file and serve his/her reply brief with this Court.
Order filed May 7, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00252

- CV

____________ CHRISTOPHER MULGREW , Appellant

V. SPECTRASEIS, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 41761



### ORDER
The notice of appeal in this case was filed March 25, 2013 . To date, the filing fee of $175.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant has established indigence has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. Therefore, the court issues the following order. Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 to the
Clerk of this court on or before May 22 , 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be
dismissed.

PER CURIAM
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Rehearing No. 550 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

135375 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PATRICIA D. BRACKETT, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Justices 

v SC: 135375 

 COA: 274078 

WCAC: 04-000165 

FOCUS HOPE and ACCIDENT FUND 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing is considered, and it is DENIED. 

CAVANAGH, J. (dissenting). 

I would grant rehearing and, on rehearing, would reverse this Court’s July 30, 

2008, decision because defendant has failed to offer any evidence that the work rule in 

question had been enforced. When seeking to avoid paying workers’ compensation 

benefits to an employee because the employee violated a work rule, the employer has the 

burden of proving that the work rule was “rigidly enforced.” Allen v Nat’l Twist Drill & 

Tool Co, 324 Mich 660, 664 (1949). Although defendant showed that employees knew 

that the work rule was considered mandatory, defendant entirely failed to show any 

occurrence of actual enforcement of the rule except against plaintiff. Thus, defendant has 

failed to establish a defense under MCL 418.305. 

KELLY, J., joins the statement of CAVANAGH, J. 

WEAVER, J. (dissenting). 

I dissent from the order denying plaintiff’s motion for rehearing. I would grant 

rehearing for the reasons stated in my statement dissenting from the decision of the 

majority of four (Chief Justice Taylor and Justices Corrigan, Young, and Markman) to 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the ground that the plaintiff’s refusal to 

attend a mandatory employee event constituted “intentional and wilful misconduct” under 

MCL 418.305, thereby barring her recovery of benefits under the Worker’s Disability 

Compensation Act, MCL 418.101 et seq. 

For my reasons in detail, see my dissenting statement in Brackett v Focus Hope, 

482 Mich___; 753 NW2d 207, 216 (2008). 

0923 

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
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

IGNACIO HERNANDEZ-MENDEZ, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 19-3247 

(D.C. No. 2:18-CR-20055-DDC-1) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This matter is before us on the United States’ Motion for Summary 

Disposition/Affirmance. The United States moves for summary affirmance based on this 

court’s recent published decision in United States v. Lira-Ramirez, 951 F.3d 1258 (10th 

Cir. 2020), en banc rev. denied May 1, 2020. While Appellant does not dispute that LiraRamirez controls the outcome of this appeal and does not contest summary affirmance of

the district court’s judgment, he reserves the right to petition the United States Supreme 

Court for further review. 

* Upon consideration of the United States’ motion and Appellant’s May 7, 

2020 status report, this panel unanimously agrees that this matter can be submitted on 

these materials and without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 

34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, 

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 

10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 26, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

In light of the foregoing, the motion for summary affirmance is granted. The 

judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam