alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEFOPERATING OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, David C. Treinen, 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 othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent 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 financial information;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 | DAVID  C. TREINEN        |
|--------------------|--------------------------|
|               | David  C. Treinen        |
|               | President  and           |
|               | Chief  Operating Officer |

 

19

----
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 23.2



We consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports dated January 26,
1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Gray
Communications Systems, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Bull
Run Corporation, in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-91296 and Form
S-8 No. 333-56125) pertaining to the Bull Run Corporation 1994 Long Term
Incentive Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-91298) pertaining
to the Bull Run Corporation Non-Employee Directors' 1994 Stock Option Plan.



                                            /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 1999
#### RENE MARY URSINO and STEVEN DONALD HEIAR, Appellants, v. SHERIFF, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8253

June 26, 1975

537 P.2d 316

*410
      *Lohse and Lohse, Chartered,*and *William K. Lohse,*Reno, for Appellants.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City, *Larry R. Hicks,*District Attorney, and *Richard L. Davenport,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

By criminal complaint, appellants were charged with ten (10) different felonies and, after preliminary examination, they were ordered to stand trial on a six (6) count information.1

*411A pretrial habeas challenge contended the evidence submitted to the magistrate was insufficient to meet the probable cause requirement prescribed in NRS 171.206. Appellants also argued counts IV, V and VI cannot stand because they were merely acting as “purchasing agents” for an undercover police officer when they allegedly acquired the cocaine on January 29, 1975. Habeas relief was denied and appellants now argue the district court committed error.

1. In regard to count III the only probative or demonstrable evidence suggesting that cocaine even existed in proximity to these appellants on January. 23, 1975, is the testimony of an undercover police officer who said he had demonstrated, to appellant Heiar, the “correct” way to package a substance that appeared to be cocaine. Appellant Ursino was said to be present in the room when this demonstration took place.

We deem this evidence insufficient to hold appellants for trial on Count III. Hammond v. Sheriff, 91 Nev. 176, 532 P.2d 1030 (1975).

The contention of lack of probable cause as to the other counts contained in the information is without merit. NRS 171.206. We are not now concerned with the prospect that the evidence presently in the record may, by itself, be insufficient to sustain a conviction on any of the remaining counts. McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326, 512 P.2d 774 (1973).

2. In support of their contention that they were merely “purchasing agents” for an undercover police officer, appellants argue they are immune from prosecution under our decision in Roy v. State, 87 Nev. 517, 489 P.2d 1158 (1971). At this juncture their reliance on *Roy*is misplaced. *“Roy*involved the right of an accused to have a ‘purchasing agent’ instruction given to the jury, ‘[wjhere the evidence does not foreclose it, . . .”’ Whitmore v. Sheriff, 88 Nev. 688, 689, 504 P.2d 703 (1972).

The order of the trial court is reversed as to count III; as. to counts I, II, TV, V and VI, it is affirmed.

The information charged: I. Both appellants with possession of marijuana on January 20, 1975 (NRS 453.336 and 453.161). n. Appellant Heiar with sale of marijuana on January 20, 1975 (NRS 453.321). III. Both appellants with possession of cocaine on January 23, 1975 (NRS 453.336 and 453.171). IV. Both appellants with sale *411of cocaine on January 29, 1975 (NRS 453.321). V. Both appellants, with possession of cocaine on January 29, 1975 (NRS 453.171). VI. Both appellants with conspiring to sell a controlled substance on January 29, 1975 (NRS 453.401 and 453.321).
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CHANDLEROCOTILLO STATION, Chandler, AZ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0823

Issued: June 2, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On May 4, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed an appeal from an April 5, 2021 merit 

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

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0823.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

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

Act.2 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance 

of OWCP’s decision.3

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no cla im f or a f ee f or 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board.

Id. An attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, 

subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of 

fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

3

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

The 180th day following the April 5, 2021 decision was October 2, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until May 4, 2022, more than 180 days af ter the April 5, 

2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0823 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 

180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 

22-0823, must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0823 is dismissed.

Issued: June 2, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5137 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5137

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for 
  transporting minors in foreign commerce for the purposes of female 
                          genital mutilation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2010

 Mr. Crowley (for himself and Mrs. Bono Mack) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for 
  transporting minors in foreign commerce for the purposes of female 
                          genital mutilation.

    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 ``Girls Protection Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. TRANSPORT FOR FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION.

    Section 116 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(d) Whoever, being a United States citizen or alien admitted for 
permanent residence in the United States, knowingly transports a person 
in foreign commerce for the purpose of conduct with regard to that 
person that would be a violation of subsection (a) if the conduct 
occurred within the United States, or attempts to do so, shall be fined 
under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VESTIN GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

We have issued our report dated February 8, 2002, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements incorporated by reference in the Annual Report of Vestin
Group, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2001. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration
Statement of Vestin Group, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-76448, effective
January 9, 2002).


/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP


Reno, Nevada
March 29, 2002
#### ............................, A MINOR 15 YEARS OF AGE, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 10591

June 14, 1978

579 P.2d 1249

*320*Donald K. Pope,*Reno, for Appellant.

. *Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Larry R. Hicks,*District Attorney, and *Calvin Dunlap,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

An indictment, filed in the district court, charged the 15-year-old appellant with (1) attempted murder (NRS 200.010; NRS 208.070), and (2) leaving the scene of an accident, a felony (NRS 484.219).

A pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus contended the charges must be dismissed because “no child under the age of 16 years may be certified for treatment as an adult. ...” The district judge considered and denied the habeas petition and in this appeal the same argument is reasserted.1

Appellant’s central argument is that we must reverse because NRS 62.050 vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the juvenile division on all criminal charges brought against persons under the age of eighteen (18) years. That statute provides, in pertinent part:

> If, during the pendency of a criminal or quasi-criminal charge, *except*a *charge of murder or attempted murder,*brought against a person in any court, it is ascertained that the person was under the age of 18 years when the alleged offense was committed, the court shall forthwith transfer the casé and record to the juvenile division. (Emphasis added.)

Thus, we see that the juvenile division has exclusive original jurisdiction of all crimes committed by persons under eighteen (18) years of age, except for the crimes of murder and attempted murder. NRS 62.040(l)(c)(l); NRS 62.050. Therefore, appellant’s argument is valid insofar as the charge of *321leaving the scene of an accident is concerned and the district judge should have granted habeas on that charge. However, we can only conclude that appellant may be tried as an adult in the district court on the charge of attempted murder, even though he was only fifteen (15) years of age when the offense was allegedly committed.

Accordingly, the district court’s order denying habeas as to the attempted murder charge is affirmed. The order denying habeas as to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident is reversed and the district court is instructed to dismiss that charge from the indictment.2

1

The petition for habeas also requested that appellant be placed in a juvenile detention facility pending the outcome of the habeas challenge. The district judge granted that request.

2

Insofar as this opinion may be in conflict with Lehman v. Warden, 87 Nev. 24, 480 P.2d 155 (1971), and its progeny, such portion of that case must be and is hereby overruled.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5307 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5307

 To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to include ultralight aircraft under 
   the definition of aircraft for purposes of the aviation smuggling 
                       provisions under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2010

  Ms. Giffords (for herself and Mr. Heller) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to include ultralight aircraft under 
   the definition of aircraft for purposes of the aviation smuggling 
                       provisions under that Act.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF AIRCRAFT UNDER AVIATION SMUGGLING PROVISIONS 
              OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930.

    (a) In General.--Section 590 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1590) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
    ``(g) Definition of Aircraft.--As used in this section, the term 
`aircraft' includes ultralight aircraft, as defined by the Secretary of 
Homeland Security in consultation with the Administrator of the Federal 
Aviation Administration.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to violations of any provision of section 590 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 on or after the 30th day after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,906
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,075
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,140
<PP&E>                                         112,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,839
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,773
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,888
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,623
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,869
<SALES>                                         53,784
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,784
<CGS>                                           39,689
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,689
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   135
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,453
<INCOME-TAX>                                       920
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,533
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,533
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36


</TABLE>
# L_2007032EN.01018101.xml

| 6.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 32/181 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 32/181

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 20 December 2006

on appointment of members of the Standards Advice Review Group created by the Commission Decision 2006/505/EC of 14 July 2006 setting up a Standards Advice Review Group to advise the Commission on the objectivity and neutrality of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group's (EFRAG's) opinions

(2007/73/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Decision 2006/505/EC of 14 July 2006 setting up a Standards Advice Review Group to advise the Commission on the objectivity and neutrality of the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group's (EFRAG's) opinions (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas:

According to Article 3 of the Decision 2006/505/EC, the Commission shall appoint a maximum of seven members of the Standards Advice Review Group from independent experts whose experience and competence in the accounting area, in particular in financial reporting issues, are widely recognised at Community level,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The Commission herewith appoints 7 members of the Standards Advice Review Group, whose names are reproduced in the Annex.

Article 2

The decision shall take effect on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 2006.

For the Commission

Charlie McCREEVY

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 199, 21.7.2006, p. 33.

1

---

ANNEX

LIST OF MEMBERS

Josef JÍLEK

Elisabeth KNORR

Carlos Soria SENDRA

Hervé STOLOWY

Enrico LAGHI

Jan KLAASEN

Geoffrey MITCHELL

---
II 

Calendar No. 490 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5278 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 10, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

JULY 28, 2010 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 405 West Second Street in Dixon, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘President Ronald W. Reagan Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PRESIDENT RONALD W. REAGAN POST OFFICE 

4 BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 405 West Second Street in 

7 Dixon, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘President Ronald W. Reagan Post Office Building’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5278 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘President Ronald W. 

5 Reagan Post Office Building’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 490 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5278 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostReagan Post Office Building’’. Dixon, Illinois, as the ‘‘President Ronald W. al Service located at 405 West Second Street in 

JULY 28, 2010 

Reported without amendment 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS