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



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 I, Robert W. Peshek, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Belden & Blake Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual 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 annual
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)) 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 annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented
in this annual 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 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. Date: March 31, 2005

/s/ Robert W. PeshekRobert W. Peshek, Senior Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7137

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN FREDERICK WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-96-786, CA-98-1620-7-20)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Frederick Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy,

III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Frederick Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-96-786;

CA-98-1620-7-20 (D.S.C. June 30, 1998). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. LAVERN JUNIOR JACOBS, Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Kenneth D. Bell , District Judge. ( 3:04

- cr - 00277

- KDB

- DCK

- 1 )

Submitted : February 15, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2024

Before KING and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Michael R. Dreeben , Washington, D.C. , L. Nicole Allan , O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP, San Francisco, California, for Appellant. Dena J. King , United States Attorney , Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray , Assistant United States Attorne y, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7004 Doc: 28 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Lavern Junior Jacobs * appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Centeno

- Morales , 90 F.4th 274, 280 (4th Cir. 2024 ). The district court denied the compassionate release motion after evaluating Jacobs’ individual circumstances

— including his vaccination status, the vaccination rate at the facility where he was incarcerated, the continued risk of severe illness if he contracted COVID

- 19, his criminal history and disciplinary infractions, and his rehabilitation efforts

— and determin ed that Jacobs had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting release. Se e United States v. Brown , 78 F.4th 122, 128

- 29 (4th Cir. 2023)

. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 185, 187 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing standard of review). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional proce ss. AFFIRMED

* The record includes more than one spelling of Jacobs’ first name. We have retained the spelling used by the district court for consistency. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7004 Doc: 28 Filed: 02/27/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3527 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to transfer the name of property of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs designated by law to other property of the Department. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 19 (legislative day, JANUARY 18), 2022 

Mr. TESTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to transfer the name of 

property of the Department of Veterans Affairs designated by law to other property of the Department. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF VETERANS AF4 FAIRS TO TRANSFER NAMES OF FACILITIES, 

5 STRUCTURES, OR REAL PROPERTY OF DE6 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 531 of title 38, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3527 IS

1 (1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘Re2 quirement’’ and inserting ‘‘Requirements’’; 

3 (2) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘Except as ex4 pressly provided by law’’ and inserting the following: 

5 ‘‘(a) NAMING LIMITATION.—Except as expressly pro6 vided by law or as authorized under subsection (b)’’; and 

7 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub8 section (b): 

9 ‘‘(b) TRANSFER OF NAMES.— 

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may transfer 

11 the name of covered property of the Department to 

12 other covered property of the Department if— 

13 ‘‘(A) the original covered property was des14 ignated with that name by law; and 

15 ‘‘(B) the other covered property is located 

16 in a different location or at a different address 

17 from the original covered property within the 

18 town, city, or other local government area speci19 fied in the designation made by such law. 

20 ‘‘(2) REFERENCES.—If the Secretary transfers 

21 the name of covered property under paragraph (1), 

22 any reference in a law, regulation, map, document, 

23 paper, or other record of the United States to the 

24 covered property originally named by law shall be 

25 deemed to be a reference to the covered property to 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3527 IS

1 which the name has been transferred under such 

2 paragraph. 

3 ‘‘(3) COVERED PROPERTY.—In this subsection, 

4 the term ‘covered property’ means a facility, struc5 ture, or real property of the Department or a major 

6 portion (such as a wing or floor) of any such facility, 

7 structure, or real property.’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

9 at the beginning of chapter 5 of such title is amended by 

10 striking the item relating to section 531 and inserting the 

11 following new item: 

‘‘531. Requirements relating to naming of Department property.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65352-65353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30705]



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

[[Page 65353]]


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[UT-910-06-1020-00]


Notice

Agency: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

Action: Notice of intent to prepare standards and guidelines, to modify 
land use plans, and prepare analyses pursuant to the National 
Environmental Policy Act.

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

Summary: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Utah intends to prepare 
Standards for Rangeland Health, Guidelines for Grazing Management, 
modifications to existing Land Use Plans, and to prepare appropriate 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents for these actions 
according to BLM's new grazing regulations (43 CFR Part 4100). Public 
comment is sought on suggested standards and guidelines, and on the 
issues and alternatives to be considered.

Dates: Comments will be accepted throughout this process or until 
further notice. Public comment periods specifically for the plan 
modification and NEPA process will be provided later.

For Further Information Contact: Deane Zeller, Team Leader, Bureau of 
Land Management, Utah State Office, 324 So. State Street, Salt Lake 
City, UT 84111-2303; phone (801) 539-4052.

Supplementary Information: Pursuant to BLM's new grazing regulations 
(43 CFR Part 4100), which became effective August 21, 1995, BLM Utah 
intends to develop Standards and Guidelines (43 CFR Part 4180) through 
the BLM planning and NEPA process. It is uncertain at this point what 
level of plan modification or NEPA analysis will be conducted. Planning 
actions may be plan maintenance, plan amendment, or new plan 
preparation. NEPA actions may be an Administrative Determination (that 
an EA/EIS is not needed), Categorical Exclusion (CX), an Environmental 
Assessment (EA), or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). All Land 
Use Plans for public lands in the State of Utah may be affected.
    Public comments and opinions are solicited and encouraged. Public 
meetings will be held--information to be announced later. Guidance will 
be sought from the Utah BLM Resource Advisory Council, user groups, 
local leaders, and the public at large.
    Issues preliminarily identified are: the effect of the proposed 
standards and guidelines on public land grazing operations, public land 
values, and other uses of the public lands.
    Alternatives identified at this time include adoption of the 
Fallback Standards and Guidelines specified in the new grazing 
regulations, adoption of new Standards and Guidelines specific to Utah, 
or continuation of current management under existing land use plans 
(where such plans are in conformance with the Fallback Standards and 
Guidelines) accompanied by incremental implementation of new Standards 
and Guidelines on priority areas.
Roger Zortman,
Acting State Director, Utah.
[FR Doc. 95-30705 Filed 12-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R ECONSIDERATION E N B ANC

Appellate case name: In re Kerry Beal

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00348

- CR

Trial court case number: 13DCR062478

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

Date motion filed: May 29, 2013

Party filing motion: Relator

Beal’s motion for en banc reconsideration is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jim Sharp

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Jennings, Higley, Bland, Sharp,

Massengale , Brown, and Huddle.

Date: October 1, 2013
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Belden & Blake Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the knowledge of the undersigned:

         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.

Date: March 24, 2003                /s/ Robert W. Peshek
                                    --------------------------------
                                    Robert W. Peshek, Vice President
                                    and Chief Financial Officer
#### VELLA LASSITER v. GREENSBORO-FAYETTEVILLE BUS LINE, INC., and QUEEN CITY COACH COMPANY, INC.

(Filed 8 November, 1939.)

Appeal by defendant, Greensboro-Fayetteville Bus Line, Inc., from *Gwyn, J.,*at July Term, 1939, of Randolph.

No error.

*T. F. Sanders and F. W. Williams for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Brooks, McLendon & Holderness for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sued to recover damages because of the wrongful act of defendant in ejecting her from one of its buses, after she had paid her fare and become a passenger thereon. The controversy involved the rights of the.parties under the law regulating the separate seating of the races in passenger-carrying buses — C. S., 2613 (p).

In some aspects the evidence was favorable to the plaintiff, in others favorable to the defendant. It was submitted to the jury, under instructions, and the jury found for the plaintiff. A careful examination of the objections and exceptions discloses no prejudicial error justifying a new trial.

We find

No error.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5664 

To amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to modify 

a high priority project in the State of California, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Ms. WATERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to modify a high priority project in the State of 

California, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT. 

4 Item number 1454 of the table contained in section 

5 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Cen6 tury (112 Stat. 310) is amended by striking the project 

7 description and inserting the following: ‘‘Construct Impe8 rial Highway street improvements or other street improve9 ments designated by the City of Inglewood’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Detailed Single Year TablesUpdated May 3, 2006   |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| Payroll Tax Rates | Description of Proposed Provision:      Raise payroll tax rates (for employees and employers combined) by 2.0 percentage points in 2006 and later |
|-------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions      of the 2005 Trustees Report*

       Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program                Percentage of taxable payroll           Trust fundratio as ofJanuary 1CalendaryearCostrateIncomerateAnnualbalance 200511.1312.721.59 320200611.0014.733.73 337200710.9414.743.80 372200810.9814.783.80 405200911.1214.773.65 435201011.2514.793.55 463201111.4214.843.43 490201211.6614.873.21 512201311.9314.902.98 532201412.2114.922.71 548201512.4814.942.45 563201612.7814.962.18 575201713.0914.981.89 585201813.3915.001.60 593201913.7015.011.31 599202014.0215.031.01 603202114.3415.050.71 606202214.6515.070.42 607202314.9515.090.14 607202415.2515.11-0.14 606202515.5415.12-0.42 603202615.8315.14-0.69 599202716.0915.16-0.94 595202816.3315.17-1.16 590202916.5415.19-1.36 585203016.7415.20-1.54 580203116.9215.21-1.71 574203217.0715.22-1.85 568203317.2015.23-1.97 562203417.2915.24-2.05 556203517.3715.24-2.12 551203617.4315.25-2.18 545203717.4715.25-2.22 540203817.5015.26-2.24 535203917.5115.26-2.25 531204017.5115.26-2.25 526204117.5215.26-2.26 521204217.5315.27-2.26 517204317.5315.27-2.26 512204417.5415.27-2.27 507204517.5415.27-2.27 502204617.5615.27-2.29 497204717.5715.27-2.30 491204817.5915.28-2.32 486204917.6115.28-2.33 480205017.6415.28-2.36 474205117.6715.28-2.39 468205217.7115.29-2.42 462205317.7515.29-2.46 455205417.7915.29-2.50 447205517.8415.30-2.54 440205617.8915.30-2.59 431205717.9415.30-2.64 423205818.0015.31-2.69 414205918.0515.31-2.74 405206018.1015.31-2.79 396206118.1515.32-2.84 386206218.2115.32-2.89 376206318.2715.32-2.95 365206418.3315.33-3.01 354206518.3915.33-3.06 343206618.4515.34-3.12 331206718.5115.34-3.17 319206818.5715.34-3.23 306206918.6215.35-3.27 293207018.6715.35-3.32 280207118.7215.35-3.36 266207218.7615.36-3.41 252207318.8115.36-3.45 238207418.8515.36-3.49 223207518.8915.36-3.53 208207618.9415.37-3.57 193207718.9815.37-3.61 177207819.0315.37-3.66 160207919.0715.37-3.70 144208019.1215.38-3.74 127Summarized RatesYearsCostrateIncomerateActuarialbalance         Change inactuarialbalance2005-207915.79%15.82%0.04%1.96% Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

s0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

141143

EDW. C. LEVY CO., LEVY INDIANA SLAG, CO. d/b/a ST. CL AIR AGGREGATES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 141143 COA: 286023 St. Clair CC: 08-001098-AA MARINE CITY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, Defendant-Appellee,

and

ST. CLAIR COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION and DETROIT BU LK STORAGE, Intervening-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, purs uant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we RE MAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21

                                  SUBSIDIARIES



Name                                                               Incorporation
----                                                               -------------
Chrysalis International Preclinical Services                       Pennsylvania
     Corporation
Chrysalis International, S.A.*                                     France
Chrysalis DNX Transgenic Sciences                                  Ohio
     Corporation
Chrysalis International Clinical Services                          Delaware
     Corporation
Chrysalis International Holding, A.G.*                             Switzerland
Chrysalis International, A.G.*                                     Switzerland
Chrysalis International, GmbH*                                     Germany
Chrysalis International Clinical Pharmacology                      Germany
     Services, GmbH*


All subsidiaries are wholly-owned except as otherwise indicated.

*    Wholly-owned subsidiary except for director qualifying shares.
#### C. C. DISHER CHEVROLET COMPANY v. R. C. JOHNSON.

(Filed 5 January, 1938.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Hill, Judge,*at March Term, 1937, of Foesyth.

Affirmed.

This was an action to recover the possession of an automobile, tried in the Forsyth County Court, resulting in judgment for defendant upon the' verdict of the jury that' plaintiff was not the owner of the automobile sued for. Upon appeal to the Superior Court, all of plaintiff’s assignments of error were overruled, and the judgment of the county court affirmed. From the judgment of the Superior Court, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, preserving its exceptions and assignments of error in the county court.

*Parrish .&.Beal and Buford T. Henderson for plaintiff.*

*Elledge •& Wells for defendant.*

PeR Curiam.

The record discloses that the controversy resolved itself into one of fact, and that the issues raised by the pleadings were properly submitted to the jury. There was no exception to the judge’s charge, and we have examined the exceptions to the court’s rulings on matters of evidence and find therein no prejudicial error. No new questions of law are presented, and we see no sufficient reason to disturb the result of the trial.

Judgment affirmed.