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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Alfred F. Riedler, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of St. Bernard Software, 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; and

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 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.



By:

/s/ Alfred F. RiedlerAlfred F. RiedlerChief Financial OfficerDated: May 15, 2007
No. 1087.

*Frank J. Foley*for petitioner. *Morris Spector*and *A. Bradley Eben*for respondent.

#### Shaw-Barton, Inc., *v.*John Baumgarth Co.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rodney JENKINS.

No. 2003-K-0737.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Jenkins, Rodney;—Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 98-CR 005466; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 02-0997.

Denied.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.J., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

U.S. PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, 

PATENT PUBLICATIONS OFFICE, 

Arlington, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1025

Issued: December 11, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On July 26, 2023 appellant sought an appeal from a purported July 13, 2023 decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned the appeal Docket No. 23-1025.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

review of final adverse OWCP decisions issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

(FECA).1 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final adverse decision of 

OWCP within the Board’s jurisdiction.2 As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2 The case record contains a document dated July 13, 2023, but this is an informational letter wherein OWCP 

explained to appellant why she received schedule award compensation for a period, rather than wage-loss 

compensation, and it does not constitute a final decision of OWCP. The case record also contains a document dated 

May 23, 2023 wherein OWCP advised her that the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes for her

accepted conditions had been updated, but this also is an informational letter rather than a final decision of OWCP.
2

over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal 

docketed as No. 23-1025 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-1025 is dismissed.

Issued: December 11, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 22, 2019

NO. 03

- 19

- 00329

- CV

Kirk Wayne McBride, Sr., Appellant

v.

Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles ; David Gutierrez, Chair of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles; Pame la Thielke, Director of t he Texas De partment of Criminal

Justice; and Michael Arellano , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA KER, AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BA KER

This is an appeal fr om the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on April 15, 2019

. Having

reviewed the record

, it appea rs that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal

. Therefore, the

C ourt dismisses the ap peal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to

pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

ZiLOG, Inc.:

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements**(No. 333-108372, No. 333-114501,No. 333-114503) on Form S-8 of ZiLOG, Inc. of ourreport dated June 26, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of ZiLOG, Inc. as of March 31, 2006 and 2005, and the relatedconsolidated statements of operations, stock holders’ equity, and cash flowsfor the year ended March 31, 2006 and the three month transition periodended March 31, 2005, and the related financial statement schedule, whichreports appear in the March 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-Kof ZiLOG, Inc.

/s/ Armanino McKenna LLP

San Ramon, California

June 26, 2006

----
**Exhibit31.3**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Mitchell K. Fogelman, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of International Aluminum Corporation;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.               designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b.              evaluated the effectivenessof the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c.               disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a.               all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b.              any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 11, 2005 | MITCHELL  K. FOGELMAN                 |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------|
|               | Mitchell  K. Fogelman                 |
|               | Senior  Vice President — Finance |
|               | and  Chief Financial Officer          |

 

20

----
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.P., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CLEVELAND 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Cleveland, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1116

Issued: March 11, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 8, 2021 appellant sought an appeal from a purported March 22, 2021 decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 21-1116.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the 

date appellant filed her appeal.2 The Board notes that the record contains a March 22, 2021 

informational letter advising appellant that no further action would be taken on her claim, which 

was a duplicate of her claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx762. This correspondence does not 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

constitute a final adverse decision by OWCP.3 As there is no final adverse decision issued by 

OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the 

appeal docketed as No. 21-1116 must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1116 is dismissed.

Issued: March 11, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

See Order Dismissing Appeal, K.S., Docket No. 20-1401 (issued March 17, 2021); Order Dismissing Appeal, 

S.U., Docket No. 20-0636 (issued December 3, 2020) (correspondence that is purely informational in nature does not 

constitute a final adverse decision of OWCP from which appellant may properly appeal). 

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66482-66483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21827]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending October 
14, 2005

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, 
as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: OST-2005-22713.
    Date Filed: October 13, 2005.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Mail Vote 464--Resolution 010x. TC3 Japan-Korea-South East 
Asia. Special Passenger Amending Resolution between Japan and China 
(excluding Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR).
    Intended effective date: 19 October 2005.

    Docket Number: OST-2005-22714.
    Date Filed: October 13, 2005.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC23/TC123 Middle East-TC3-Reso 017c. Geneva & 
Teleconference, 12-14 September 2005 (Memo 0243). TC23/TC123 Middle 
East-South Asian Subcontinent. Reso 002b. Geneva & Teleconference, 12-
14 September 2005 (Memo 244). TC23/TC123 Middle East-South West 
Pacific-Reso 002ar. Geneva & Teleconference, 12-14 September 2005 (Memo 
0245). TC23/TC123 Middle East-Japan, Korea Reso 002be. Special Amending 
Resolution between Middle East and Japan Korea. Geneva & 
Teleconference, 12-14 September 2005 (Memo 0246).
    Intended effective date: 15 January 2006.

    Docket Number: OST-2005-22718.
    Date Filed: October 13, 2005.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: TC23/123 Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conferences. Geneva 
and Teleconference, 26-28 September 2005. TC23/123 Europe-South East 
Asia Expedited. Resolution 002ao.
    Intended effective date: 15 November 2005.

    Docket Number: OST-2005-22722.
    Date Filed: Ocotboer 13, 2005.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.

[[Page 66483]]

    Subject: TC23/123 Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conferences. Geneva 
and Teleconference, 26-28 September 2005. TC23/123 Europe-South East 
Asia Expedited. Resolution 002bh (Memo 0212).
    Intended effective date: 1 December 2005.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 05-21827 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND THE STATEMENT
OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL CONDITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                      
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1998<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,400
<SECURITIES>                                   112,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                  938,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (10,300)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          13,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (8,300)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,565,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        903,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,565,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,600
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (8,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,400
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> THE CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION IS UNCLASSIFIED;
THEREFORE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CURRENT AND LONG-TERM ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES IS NOT AVAILABLE.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 2, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21850]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-05-098]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Newtown Creek, Dutch Kills, 
English Kills, and Their Tributaries, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a 
temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the 
Metropolitan Avenue Bridge, mile 3.4, across English Kills at New York 
City, New York. Under this temporary deviation the bridge may remain in 
the closed position from November 14, 2005 through November 20, 2005. 
This temporary deviation is necessary to facilitate scheduled bridge 
maintenance.

DATES: This deviation is effective from November 14, 2005 through 
November 20, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First 
Coast Guard District, at (212) 668-7195.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Metropolitan Avenue Bridge has a 
vertical clearance in the closed position of 10 feet at mean high water 
and 15 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation 
regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.801(e).
    The owner of the bridge, New York City Department of Transportation 
(NYCDOT), requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation 
regulations to facilitate scheduled bridge repairs.
    Under this temporary deviation the NYCDOT Metropolitan Avenue 
Bridge may remain in the closed position from November 14, 2005 through 
November 20, 2005.
    This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 
33 CFR 117.35, and will be performed with all due speed in order to 
return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible.

    Dated: October 25, 2005.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-21850 Filed 11-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
#### The Hoboken Bank for Savings in the City of Hoboken, respondent, *v.*Clinton Realty Corp., appellant.

[Submitted February 14th, 1947.

Decided April 24th, 1947.]

*Mr. Samuel J.*Davidson, for the appellant.

*Messrs. Pierson & Brand {Mr. Julius Lichtenstein,*of counsel), for the respondent.

Pee Curiam.

The decree appealed from is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Kays and reported at *138 N. J. Eq. 271.*

*For affirmance*— The Chief-Justice, Paekek, Bodine, Donges, Hehee, Colie, Wachenfeld, Eastwood, Wells, Eaffeety, Dill, Peeund, McGeehan, McLean, JJ. 14.

*For reversal*— Hone.
In th e Int erest of M.D.J., M.D.J. and M.D.J. § From th e 69 th District Court O f Moore C ounty 07- 06- 00447- CV § June 5, 20 07 § Opi nio n by

C hie f Just ic e Qui nn J U D G M E N T Pursuantto the opi nio n of the Cou rtdate d J une 5, 2007, i t i s o rd ered, a dju dg ed and dec re ed th at t his appeal be d is mis sed for w ant o f jur is dicti on. It is fu rther orde red, ad judged a nd d ecree d tha t app ellantMichael Jon e s p ay all

cos ts occ asi oned by

thi s a ppeal , for w hic h l et ex ecut ion i ss ue. It is furth er

ordered th at t his dec is ion be c erti fied bel ow for o bser

v ance. oOo
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ELLIS COOPER

No. 6827SC462

(Filed 18 December 1968)

Escape § 1; Criminal Law . § 40— admissibility of commitment

In a prosecution for felonious escape, an unverified copy of a commit? ment containing the signature of an assistant clerk of Superior Court and bearing the seal of the clerk of the Superior Court is admissible to show the lawfulness of defendant’s confinement at the time of the alleged escape.

Appeal by defendant from *Snepp, J.,*22 July 1968 Session, GastoN Superior Court.

Defendant was tried upon an indictment charging him with a felonious escape. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. From the verdict and judgment of imprisonment for a period of two years defendant appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, by Dale Shepherd, Staff Attorney, for the State.*

*Verne E. Shive for the defendant.*

Brook, J.

The crux of defendant's appeal relates to his exception to the introduction of an unverified copy of commitment taken from the defendant’s file at the prison unit from which he is alleged to have *309escaped. This exhibit was offered by the State to show the lawfulness of defendant’s confinement at the time of the alleged escape. This commitment contained the signature of an assistant clerk of Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, and bore the imprint of the official seal of the Clerk of Superior Court of Mecklenburg County.

This precise question has been decided adversely to defendant’s position in the case of *State v. Beamon, 2*N.C. App. 583, filed 16 October 1968. Upon authority of *Beamon*defendant’s assignments of error are overruled.

No error.

Beitt and PakKEb, JJ., concur.
#### STATE v. DOVER

No. 146 PC.

Case below: 17 N.C. App. 150.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 March 1973.