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

CERTIFICATION

I, Donald M. Muir, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Lionbridge Technologies, 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 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;

(c) 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

(d) 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 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 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:

(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: May 9, 2008

By:

/s/ DONALD M. MUIRDonald M. Muir Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS  This
Certificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350
of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of the
United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Act of 1934, as amended.  The
undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT II, Inc. (the Company), each hereby
certify as follows:  The
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company (the Report), which
accompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated this 30th day of
March, 2010.  /s/ Robert S. AisnerRobert S. Aisner,Chief Executive Officer/s/ Gary S. BreskyGary S. Bresky,Chief Financial Officer
IB 

House Calendar No. 50 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 553 

[Report No. 113–204] 

To designate the exclusive economic zone of the United States as the ‘‘Ronald 

Wilson Reagan Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2013 

Mr. ISSA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 553 RH

A BILL 

To designate the exclusive economic zone of the United 

States as the ‘‘Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 553 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THE RONALD WILSON 

4 REAGAN EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OF 

5 THE UNITED STATES. 

6 (a) DESIGNATION.—The exclusive economic zone of 

7 the United States, as established by Presidential Procla8 mation Numbered 5030, dated March 10, 1983, is des9 ignated as the ‘‘Ronald Wilson Reagan Exclusive Eco10 nomic Zone of the United States’’. 

11 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg12 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

13 States to the exclusive economic zone of the United States 

14 is deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Ronald Wilson Reagan 

15 Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 50 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 553 

[Report No. 113–204] 

A BILL 

To designate the exclusive economic zone of the 

clusive Economic Zone of the United States’’. United States as the ‘‘Ronald Wilson Reagan ExSEPTEMBER 10, 2013 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
PENDARIES PETROLEUM LTD. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD 
ENDED March 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO 
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         7,326
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149
<ALLOWANCES>                                   254
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,729
<PP&E>                                         21,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (691)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 28,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          172
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       32,530
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,139)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   28,563
<SALES>                                        101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               190
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (319)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (319)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.4)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.4)
        


</TABLE>
Dismiss and Opinion Filed May 3 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00281

- CV

COGENT MIDSTREAM WESTEX, LLC; COGENT MIDSTREAM, LLC; AND CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S OF LONDON AS PARTIAL SUBROGEES OF COGENT , Appellants
V. ROCKIN' CT OIL & GAS SERVICES, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 21

- 14470

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Smith Opinion b y Justice Osborne Before the Court is appellants’ voluntary motion to dismiss the appeal without

prejudice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1 (a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the

appeal without prejudice. See id.

220281f.p05 /Leslie Osborne//
LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

COGENT MIDSTREAM WESTEX, LLC; COGENT MIDSTREAM, LLC; AND CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S OF LONDON AS PARTIAL SUBROGEES OF COGENT, Appellants

No. 05

- 22

- 00281

- CV V.

ROCKIN' CT OIL & GAS SERVICES, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 21

- 14470. Opinion delivered by Justice Osborne, Justices Schenck and Smith participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal without prejudice.

We ORDER that appellee Rockin ' CT Oil & Gas Services, LLC recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellants Cogent Midstream WesTex, LLC; Cogent Midstream, LLC; and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London as Partial Subrogees of Cogent.

Judgment entered this 3 rd day of May 2022.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 236 (Friday, December 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63031-63032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29947]



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

[[Page 63032]]


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. ER95-1586-000 and EL96-17-000]


Citizens Utilities Company; Notice of Initiation of Proceeding 
and Refund Effective Date

December 5, 1995.
    Take notice that on November 30, 1995, the Commission issued an 
order in the above-indicated dockets initiating a proceeding in Docket 
No. EL96-17-000 under section 206 of the Federal Power Act.
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL96-17-000 will be 60 days 
after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-29947 Filed 12-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
----

Exhibit 32.0

|   | (1) | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended      September 30, 2008 (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(a) 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | October      31, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Thomas F. Prisby                                     |
|--------|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                  |   | Thomas      F. Prisby                                         |
|   |                  |   | Chairman      of the Board andChief      Executive Officer    |
|   |                  |   |                                                          |
|   |                  |   |                                                          |
|   |                  |   |                                                          |
| Date:  | October      31, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Charles V. Cole                                      |
|   |                  |   | Charles      V. Cole                                          |
|   |                  |   | Executive      Vice President andChief      Financial Officer |

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3995-1 Filed: 09/24/19 Entered: 09/24/19 17:25:35 Page 1

of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT A

HOURS BY PROFESSIONAL

FOR THE PERIOD JULY 18, 2019 THROUGH AUGUST 17, 2019

:PROFESSIONAL

POSITION

TOTAL

HOURS

Adam Goldberg Partner 22.00

Eleanor McManus Partner 12.50

Lanny Davis Partner 4.00

Alexander Lange Senior Director 46.00

Emily Seeley Account Manager 29.50

Total: 114.00

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3995-1 Filed: 09/24/19 Entered: 09/24/19 17:25:35 Page 2

of 2
#### Wilson B. Taylor, Respondent, v. Jackson T. Roe, Appellant.

Judfment affirmed, with costs.—

Martin, J.:

A careful examination of the evidence contained in the appeal book has led us to the conclusion that it was sufficient to justify the decision of the learned trial judge that the premises described had become and were a public highway. While there was something of a conflict.in the testimony as to the facts bearing upon that question, it cannot be said that the findings of the court were against the weight of the evidence. Upon the facts as found the court properly held that the *locus in quo*was a public highway, and it was, therefore, justified in directing the judgment herein. We find no other exception that would justify us in disturbing the judgment, or that requires discussion. It follows, therefore, that the judgment should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Hardin, P. J., and. Merwin, J., concurred.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5494 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide the work opportunity 

tax credit with respect to the hiring of veterans in the field of renewable 

energy. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 

Ms. LEE of California (for herself and Mr. HONDA) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

the work opportunity tax credit with respect to the hiring 

of veterans in the field of renewable energy. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Incentives for our Na5 tion’s Veterans in Energy Sustainability Technologies’’ or 

6 as the ‘‘INVEST Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5494 IH

1 SEC. 2. WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT FOR VETERANS 

2 HIRED IN THE FIELD OF RENEWABLE EN3 ERGY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 51(d)(14) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(14) CERTAIN VETERANS HIRED IN THE

7 FIELD OF RENEWABLE ENERGY.— 

8 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this 

9 subpart, an individual shall be treated a mem10 ber of a targeted group if such individual is a 

11 specified veteran, but qualified wages with re12 spect to such individual shall include only wages 

13 attributable to services rendered in a field of re14 newable energy. 

15 ‘‘(B) SPECIFIED VETERAN.—For purposes 

16 of this paragraph, the term ‘specified veteran’ 

17 means any veteran (as defined in paragraph 

18 (3)) who is certified by the designated local 

19 agency as— 

20 ‘‘(i) having received a credential or 

21 certification from the Department of De22 fense of military occupational specialty or 

23 skill in a field of renewable energy or with 

24 respect to advanced manufacturing, ma25 chinist or welding, or engineering, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5494 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) having completed a vocational 

2 degree in a field of renewable energy dur3 ing the 1-year period ending on the hiring 

4 date, or 

5 ‘‘(iii) having completed a LEED cer6 tification with the United States Green 

7 Building Council. 

8 ‘‘(C) RENEWABLE ENERGY.—For purposes 

9 of this paragraph, renewable energy means re10 sources that rely on fuel sources that restore 

11 themselves over short periods of time and do 

12 not diminish, including the sun, wind, moving 

13 water, organic plant and waste material, and 

14 the earth’s heat.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 this section shall apply to individuals who begin work for 

17 the employer after December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Filed 8/1/24 P. v. Carroll CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT LEE CARROLL,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B334489 

(consolidated with 

B334491, B334492, 

B334493)

(Super. Ct. Nos. 

21F-04890, 23F-07178,

23F-04884, 21F-06462)

(San Luis Obispo County)

Robert Lee Carroll had four pending cases. He entered into 

a global plea agreement resolving all four cases.

In case number B334489, Carroll pled no contest to a felony 

count of failing to annually update his registration as a sex 

offender. (Pen. Code1 § 290.012, subd. (a).) He was placed on 

formal probation for two years.

In case number B334491, Carroll pled no contest to identity 

theft (§ 530.5, subd. (a)) and forgery of a drivers license (§ 470, 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 

otherwise indicated.
2

subd. (a)). The offenses were reduced to misdemeanors and he 

was sentenced to time served.

In case number B334492, Carroll pled no contest to vehicle 

theft (Veh. Code § 10851, subd. (a)). The offense was reduced to a 

misdemeanor and he was sentenced to time served.

In case number B334493, Carroll pled no contest to writing 

a check on insufficient funds. (§ 476a, subd. (a).) He was placed 

on probation for two years.

We agreed to consolidate the appeals.

We appointed counsel to represent Carroll in these appeals. 

After counsel’s examination of the records, counsel filed an 

opening brief raising no issues.

On May 29, 2024, we advised Carroll by mail that he had 

30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or 

issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We received no reply.

We reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that 

Carroll’s attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and 

that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436, 441.)

The judgment (order) is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J. CODY, J.
Teresa Estrada-Mullaney and Jesse J. Marino, Judges

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Teresa Biagini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20616 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FREDY ALBERTO RAMIREZ-MENESES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-105-1

-------------------- August 22, 2001 Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Fredy Alberto Ramirez-Meneses appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting the importation of heroin and aiding and abetting the possession of heroin with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Ramirez argues that the district court erred in denying him a two-level reduction in his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6). Section 2D1.1(b)(6) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides: “If the defendant meets the criteria set forth in subdivisionsNo. 00-20616 -2- (1)-(5) of § 5C1.2 (Limitation on Applicability of Statutory Minimum Sentences in Certain Cases) and the offense level determined above is level 26 or greater, decrease by 2 levels.” Because Ramirez was the party seeking an adjustment in the sentence, he had the burden of proving the facts to support the adjustment. United States v. Flanagan , 80 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1996). Ramirez failed to meet his burden of proving his entitlement to an adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6). By recanting his admission that he previously smuggled heroin into the United States using the same method, Ramirez called into question his truthfulness. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5); United States v. Edwards , 65 F.3d 430, 433 (5th Cir. 1995). The Presentence Report (PSR) and the Government’s response to Ramirez’s objections to the PSR further supported denial of the adjustment. The district court’s decision that Ramirez did not qualify for a two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6) was not clearly erroneous, as it was plausible in the light of the record read as a whole. See United
States v. Torres , 114 F.3d 520, 527 (5th Cir. 1997). Although the district court did not articulate specific reasons for denying the adjustment, the district court adopted the factual findings and guideline applications contained in the PSR, except for the drug-quantity determination, as stated in its judgment. This was sufficient for Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 purposes. United
States v. Mora , 994 F.2d 1129, 1141 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.