alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-92248, 333-98549, and 333-108222 on Form S-8 of our reportdated April 18, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. andsubsidiary for the 52 weeks ended January 29, 2005. 

 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

April 18, 2005
EXHIBIT 31.1

Chief Executive Officer Certification

I, Peter H. Jackson, certify that:

(1)  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Intraware, Inc. (the "registrant");

(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:

(i)  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;

(ii)  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

(iii)  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):

(i)  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

(ii)  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.

Dated:    April 25, 2007

|/s/  PETER H. JACKSON
                Peter H. JacksonChairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of
   Intraware, Inc.
   (Principal Executive Officer) | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 21, 2019

No. 04-18-00834-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.R.H., A CHILD,

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-20578

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was due January 28, 2019, but was not filed. On January 29, 2019, the 

clerk filed a notification of late record stating the clerk’s record was not filed because appellant 

had not paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee to prepare the record and appellant was 

not entitled to the record without paying the fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(b), 35.3(a). We 

therefore ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court on or before February 14, 2019

that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements satisfactory to the clerk have been 

made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to the clerk’s record without prepayment 

of the clerk’s fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, 35.3(a). 

On February 16, 2019, appellant filed a response, stating he has provided payment to the 

district clerk. Attached to his response were copies of the check made out to the district clerk 

and receipt. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the district clerk to file the clerk’s record in this court on or 

before March 25, 2019. 

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel, the court 

reporter, and the district clerk. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of February, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 0 9

- 00 070

- CR

______________________________

JAMES DIXON GRAVES, JR. , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 76th Judicial District Court

Morris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10,005

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Mo rriss2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

J ames Dixon Graves, Jr.

, appeals from his convictions by a jury in this cause on three

charges of indecency with a child. 1 Graves has filed a single brief, in which he raises issues

common to all of his appeals. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his ( 1) motion to

suppress the evidence, ( 2) request for funds to hire an expert

, ( 3) request to have t he victim

examined by the expert as to her disability and competency to testify

, and ( 4) motion for mistrial.

Graves also complains that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the victim was disable d

under the Texas Penal Code.

We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Graves’ appeal in cause

number 06

- 09

- 00063

- CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has not

been shown in this case.

We affirm the judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: February 5, 2010

Date Decided: February 24 , 2010

Do Not Publis h

1 Graves appeals from judgments entered in cause numbers 06

- 09

- 00063

- CR through 06

- 09

- 00070

- CR.
EXHIBIT 99.6




Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of
 Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted
 pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  In connection with the annual report of ARC Resources Ltd. (“ARC”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John P. Dielwart, President and Chief Executive Officer of ARC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
  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 ARC.
   /s/ John P. Dielwart
  Name: John P. Dielwart
 Title: Chief Executive Officer
  September 12, 2012
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent Randolph THORNTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 78-5188

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 27, 1978.

*994Vincent Randolph Thornton, pro se, Floyd M. Buford, Macon, Ga. (Court-appointed), for defendant-appellant.

D. L. Rampey, Jr., U. S. Atty., Richard Nettum, Asst. U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before THORNBERRY, GODBOLD and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc.*v. *Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et*al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

There is no merit to Thornton’s claim that a pistol found in his possession was improperly admitted into evidence because it was the fruit of an arrest made without probable cause.

Police received a citizen’s report that a black male wearing a brown leather jacket was loitering around a parking lot looking into cars parked on the lot. A police officer went to the area to investigate. Two blocks from the parking lot he saw Thornton, a black male, carrying a brown leather jacket under his arm. The officer stopped Thornton, asked for identification, and questioned him as to his destination. According to the officer’s testimony, which the trial court was entitled to believe, the following occurred. The gun was not found by means of a “frisk.” The police officer did not touch Thornton until after the gun was observed. Rather, Thornton placed his jacket on the police car, and as the officer picked it up to return it to him the pistol fell out. Thornton was then arrested on a state charge of carrying a concealed weapon; he would not have been arrested had the pistol not fallen out. Later Thornton was identified as having participated in a bank robbery and was convicted on this federal charge.

Under Georgia standards the investigatory stop of Thornton was valid. A Georgia police officer in the course of his investigation is entitled to make reasonable inquiries. *Shy v. State,*234 Ga. 816, 218 S.E.2d 599 (1975); *Ricks v. State,*140 Ga. App. 298, 231 S.E.2d 113 (1976); *Allen v. State,*140 Ga.App. 828, 232 S.E.2d 250 (1976). Once the pistol accidentally came into plain view the officer was entitled to arrest. The Georgia standards do not violate federal constitutional standards.

We do not consider the contention that the conviction should be reversed because defense counsel did not render effective assistance. This issue is not properly raised by direct appeal. *U. S. v. Prince,*456 F.2d 1070 (CA5, 1972).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED without prejudice to the right of appellant to raise the issue of ineffective counsel in a proper proceeding.
Exhibit 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amendment No.1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report of
Mobius Management Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending
June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, as so amended, (the "Report"), I, Peter E. Takiff, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (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/ Peter E. Takiff
------------------------
Peter E. Takiff
Chief Financial Officer
October 28, 2002
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support 

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: DCAS-PER-070 

Effective Date: 4/5/2016 

Revision No. 0

Nuclear Metals Inc. Page 1 of 2

Author: Signature on file 

 Dave Allen, HP Team Leader 

 Date: 4/5/2016 Supersedes: None

Approval: Signature on file 

 J.W. Neton, Associate Director for Science 

Date: 4/5/2016 

 

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE EFFECTIVE REV. NO. DESCRIPTION

AUTHORIZATION DATE

DATE

New document to determine the effect of 

4/5/2016 4/5/2016 0 issuing DCAS-TKBS-0010, (Nuclear 

Metals Inc.) on previously completed 

claims.

 

1.0 Description 

Dose reconstructions for the claims from the Nuclear Metals Inc. (NMI) were originally 

performed individually using site research which was eventually summarized in an SEC 

Evaluation Report. In 2012 and 2014 two classes of NMI employees were added to the 

SEC covering employment periods from 10/29/1958 through 12/31/1990. 

On 4/25/2015, a TBD covering NMI was issued (DCAS-TKBS-0010). This PER 

(DCAS-PER-070) evaluates the effect of issuing the TBD on all previously completed 

claims. 

2.0 Issue Evaluation 

Because many NMI employees were monitored and there was no previous TBD, it is 

unclear what affect this TBD will have on previously completed claims. Therefore, all 

previously completed claims with a probability of causation (POC) less than 50% were 

evaluated under this PER and no itemizing of changes to methods is necessary. 

3.0 Plan for Resolution or Corrective Action 

In order to evaluate the effect of issuing the TBD on all previously completed claims, a 

search was conducted for all completed claims with verified employment at the NMI that 

had a probability of causation (POC) of less than 50%. This search identified 21 claims. 

Three of these claims had been completed using the TBD and were removed from further 

evaluation. 
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Plan

Document Number: DCAS-PER-070

Effective Date: 4/5/2016 Revision No. 0 Page 2 of 2

A new dose estimate was performed for the remaining 18 claims using the TBD, as well 

as all other applicable approved dose reconstruction methods. The resulting probability 

of causation (POC) was below 45% for 16 claims. The two remaining claim resulted in a 

POC between 45% and 50%. For those claims, IREP was run 30 times at 10,000 

iterations per NIOSH procedures. The resulting POC remained below 50% for both 

claims.

NIOSH will provide the Department of Labor with the list of all claims evaluated under 

this PER. Since none would now result in a POC greater than 50%, NOSH will not 

request the return of any of the claims.
Exhibit




Exhibit 10.7(c)






MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION


Second Amendment to the 
MeadWestvaco Corporation Deferred Income Plan
(2007 Restatement)


MeadWestvaco Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Deferred Income Plan (the “Plan”).  Pursuant to Section 10.01(b), the Company reserves the right to amend the Plan as authorized by resolution of the Company’s Board of Directors, which resolution was approved on June 23, 2014.  


The Plan is hereby amended effective January 1, 2015 as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 1.02(a) is amended by restating subsection (a) in its entirety as follows:




		
	1.02
	PURPOSES OF THE PLAN 




		
	(a)
	The purpose of the Plan is to enable participants to defer voluntarily the receipt of certain amounts, including compensation not otherwise eligible for deferral under the MeadWestvaco Corporation Savings and Employee Stock Ownership Plan for Salaried and Non-Bargained Employees (the “Qualified Plan”).  Prior to January 1, 2015, the Plan authorized the Administrative Committee on behalf of the Plan to provide matching credits on certain deferrals to restore certain benefits that could not be provided under the Qualified Plan.  Effective as of January 1, 2015, this feature is being eliminated and no additional matching credits on any deferrals of any kind may be made under the terms of this Plan.




		
	2.
	Section 4.02 is amended by deleting such section in its entirety, and by substituting the language below to read as follows:




		
	4.02
	EMPLOYER NON-QUALIFIED MATCHING CREDITS




Effective as of January 1, 2015, the Administrative Committee is no longer authorized to credit any non-qualified matching credits to any Eligible Employee’s Account.
    
		
	3.
	Section 5.01 is amended by deleting subsection 5.01(d) from Section 5.01 entirely.











Exhibit 10.7(c)








    
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Second Amendment to the Plan on this 19th date of November, 2014.




/s/ John A. Luke, Jr.        
John A. Luke, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


APPROVALS:


LAW DEPARTMENT                FILED: December 19, 2014


BY:     /s/ John J. Carrara                    /s/ Wendell L. Willkie, II               
      John J. Carrara                    Wendell L. Willkie, II                
		
	      Associate General Counsel
	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
----

|  | (1) | To                my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15                U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ John D. Thomas |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                   John D. Thomas          |
|                   Chief Executive Officer |

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on October 17, 2007, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Joint Venture under ATP Award No. 70 NANB7H7019 has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are Agiltron, Inc. Woburn, MA; Advanced MicroSensors, Inc. Shrewsbury, MA; and L-3 Communications Infrared Products, Dallas, TX. The nature and the objectives of the venture are: The development of technologies related to low cost thermal imaging.

The activities of this venture project will be partially founded by an award from the Advanced Technology Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 08-610 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-1598

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Craig Allen

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

 ____________

 Submitted: July 5, 2024

Filed: July 11, 2024 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Craig Allen appeals after the district court1 denied his motion seeking a

sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). His counsel has filed a motion to

1The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.
withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the denial. Allen has also filed a pro se

brief.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in finding that a reduction was not warranted. See United States v. Boyd,

819 F.3d 1054, 1056 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (district court’s decision whether

to grant authorized § 3582(c)(2) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm.

______________________________

-2-
In the Senate of the United States, 

August 1, 2017. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 601) entitled ‘‘An Act to enhance the transparency and accelerate the impact of assistance provided 

under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to promote quality 

basic education in developing countries, to better enable such 

countries to achieve universal access to quality basic education and improved learning outcomes, to eliminate duplication and waste, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the 

following 

AMENDMENTS: 

1 Ω1æOn page 8, line 20, strike ‘‘; and’’ and insert ‘‘;’’ 

2 Ω2æOn page 8, line 23, strike the period at the end and 

3 insert ‘‘; and’’. 

4 Ω3æOn page 8, between lines 23 and 24, insert the fol5 lowing: 
2 

† HR 601 EAS 

1 ‘‘(E) promote United States values, espe2 cially respect for all persons and freedoms of re3 ligion, speech, and the press. 

4 Ω4æOn page 12, line 14, strike ‘‘; and’’ and insert ‘‘;’’ 

5 Ω5æOn page 12, strike line 17 and insert ‘‘educational sys6 tems; and’’. 

7 Ω6æOn page 12, between lines 17 and 18, insert the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(C) there is the greatest opportunity to re10 duce childhood and adolescence exposure to or 

11 engagement in violent extremism or extremist 

12 ideologies.’’. 

13 Ω7æOn page 12, line 20, strike everything after ‘‘Not’’ to 

14 line 25 and insert the following: later than one year after 

15 the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 

16 submit to the appropriate congressional committees a com17 prehensive United States strategy to be carried out during 

18 the following five fiscal years to promote quality basic edu19 cation in partner countries by— 

20 Ω8æOn page 18, line 11, strike everything after ‘‘Not’’ to 

21 line 14 and insert the following: later than 180 days after 

22 the end of each fiscal year during which the strategy devel-
3 

† HR 601 EAS 

1 oped pursuant to section 4(a) is carried out, the President 

2 shall— 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H.R. 601 

AMENDMENTS