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

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

I, Jerry C. Young, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Da-Lite Screen Company, 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 thestatements 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 cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible 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)) forthe registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures 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 whichthis report is being prepared; 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover 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 acceptedaccounting principles; 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented 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 theregistrant’s fourth 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 auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significantdeficiencies 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 financialinformation; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: February 26, 2010
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 30, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50758

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CANDIDO PEREZ-GUZMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:03-CR-247-6

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Candido Perez-Guzman (Perez) pleaded guilty to count 2 of an

indictment charging him with conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens. 

Perez was sentenced to a 49-month term of imprisonment and to a

three-year period of supervised release. Perez contends that his

guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the factual

basis of his guilty plea was not sufficient to establish that he

conspired to harbor illegal aliens. We review this issue for

plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). 
No. 05-50758

-2-

Perez’s argument is based upon his numerous equivocations

during the rearraignment and, specifically, on the fact that he

denied having personal knowledge of some of the facts recited in

the plea agreement. This argument is without merit. Each time

Perez equivocated, the magistrate judge confirmed again that

Perez was admitting the elements of the offense. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) & (v); United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410

F.3d 154, 160 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1020, and

cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1021, and cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1022

(2006). At no point does Perez contend that there was a

reasonable probability that he would not have entered the plea

but for error on the part of the district court. See United

States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Perez has

not shown that the district court plainly erred in accepting his

guilty plea. See Vonn, 535 U.S. at 59. 

Perez contends that the district court erred in deviating

from the guideline range because he groped a female victim. The

district court articulated its reasons for its three-month

deviation adequately and the non-guidelines sentence reasonably

reflected the statutory sentencing factors. See United States v.

Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707–08 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6225]



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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[License No. 01/71-0363


Notice of Issuance of a Small Business Investment Company License

    On November 7, 1994, a notice was published in the Federal Register 
(59 FR 55522) stating that an application had been filed by Pioneer 
Ventures Limited Partnership II, Boston, Massachusetts with the Small 
Business Administration (SBA) pursuant to Section 107.102 of the 
Regulations governing small business investment companies (13 CFR 
107.102 (1994)) for a license to operate as a small business investment 
company.
    Interested parties were given until close of business on November 
22, 1994 to submit their comments to SBA. No comments were received. 
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Section 301(c) of the Small 
Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, after having considered 
the application and all other pertinent information, SBA issued License 
No. 01/71-0363 on February 6, 1995, to Pioneer Ventures Limited 
Partnership II to operate as a small business investment company.
    The Licensee will have initial private capital of $2.6 million and 
has commitments for additional capital which are expected to reflect 
total capital of $15.0 million when fully invested. The Licensee will 
be owned by institutional investors. Limited partners with a larger 
than 10% partnership interest include the Massachusetts Bay 
Transportation Authority Retirement Fund, Middlesex County Contributory 
Retirement System, The Pioneer Group, Inc., Worcester County 
Contributory Retirement System, and Cambridge Retirement System.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)

    Dated: March 7, 1995.
Robert D. Stillman,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 95-6225 Filed 3-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12722-12723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5575]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[SC19-1-5031b; FRL-5166-8]


Disapproval of Revision to the South Carolina SIP

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to disapprove the State implementation plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of South Carolina containing 
South Carolina's generic bubble regulation. In the final rules section 
of this Federal Register, the EPA is disapproving the State's SIP 
revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and 
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the 
disapproval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse 
comments are received in response to that direct final rule, no further 
activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA 
receives adverse comments, the direct [[Page 12723]] final rule will be 
withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a 
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

DATES: To be considered, comments must be received by April 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Kay 
T. Prince, at the EPA Regional Office listed below.
    Copies of the documents relative to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the following 
locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents 
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 
hours before the visiting day.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345 
Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 2600 
Bull Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kay T. Prince, Regulatory Planning and Development Section, Air 
Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, Region 4 
Environmental Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30365. The telephone number is 404/347-3555 x4221. Reference 
file SC19-1-5031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule which is published in the rules section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: January 26, 1995.
Patrick M. Tobin,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-5575 Filed 3-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### WILLIAM E. MOORE v. PROPST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

(Filed 12 April, 1961.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Carr, J.,*November, 1960 Civil Term, VaNCE Superior Court.

Civil action in which the plaintiff sought to recover for personal injury and property damages sustained when the 1957 model Pontiac sedan driven by plaintiff’s brother ran into a mound of crushed stone placed by the defendant on the paved portion of U.S. Highway 1-A near Henderson, North Carolina. The pleadings raise issues of *465negligence, contributory negligence, and damages. At the trial both parties introduced evidence. The jury found defendant guilty of negligence and the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence. From the judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiff appealed.

*Sterling G. Gilliam, B. H. Hicks, for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Teague, Johnson & Patterson, Bennett Perry, Jr., Ronald C.*Dilthey, *for defendant, appellee.*

PeR Cueiam.

The plaintiff charged that the defendant on and prior to December *25,*1957, as principal contractor, was engaged in relocating a portion of U.S. Highway No. 1 in Vance County, North Carolina, and negligently permitted the barricades, warning devices, and detour signs to be removed from a section of the highway under construction, and negligently placed a large mound of gravel or crushed stone on the hard surface of that part of the highway which should have been closed; that plaintiff’s brother ran into the mound of stone, causing the plaintiff serious personal injury and damage to the vehicle.

The defendant denied negligence and set up, as a plea in bar, the contributory negligence of plaintiff’s brother, as plaintiff’s agent and driver, alleging that he was negligent in ignoring the warning signs on the highway, was driving faster than was prudent under existing conditions, operated the vehicle carelessly and negligently, and failed to keep a lookout; that his negligence in these respects caused or contributed to the accident and resulting injury.

The plaintiff assigned as error the admission and exclusion of testimony relating to the defendant’s authority and responsibility for permitting traffic on the part of the highway under construction. We need not consider this assignment for the reason that the jury answered the issue of defendant’s negligence in favor of the plaintiff, and that any error with respect to evidence on the issue was cured by the verdict.

For a second assignment of error the plaintiff has challenged one clause lifted from a sentence in the court’s charge. The challenged part of the sentence, if standing alone, would constitute error. However, when properly considered in context, the clause was a part of the court’s statement of the defendant’s contentions. The plaintiff made no objection until after verdict. The charge, considered in its entirety, is clear, concise, and presented the issues impartially. No reason appears why the verdict should be disturbed.

No error.
Ralph RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Janet RENO, Attorney General of the United States; Doris Meissner, Commission, Immigration and

Naturalization Service; Robert Wallis, Acting District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service;

United States Immigration and Naturalization Service; United States Department of Justice; and Executive

Office of Immigration Review, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 98-4230

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

May 4, 1999.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 97-3799-CIV-EBD);

Edward B. Davis, Judge.

Before CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges, and HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

BY THE COURT:

The United States Supreme Court narrowly has restricted the circumstances in which a court of

appeals can recall a mandate in a case. Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 1498, 140

L.Ed.2d 728 (1998). In view of what the Supreme Court instructs in Calderon, we deny the Petitioner

Richardson's "Application to Withdraw this Court's Mandate and Stay or Summarily Reverse its Decision in

light of Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, et al."

Since Richardson has filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, we would welcome,

however, an opportunity to revisit our decision in Richardson v. Reno, 162 F.3d 1338 (1998), in light of the

Supreme Court's decision in Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct.

936, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1999) ("AADC "), if the Supreme Court should vacate our decision and remand for

further proceedings in this case, which would automatically recall the mandate. Unless and until that

happens, this Court lacks the authority to decide whether INA § 1252(b)(9) precludes jurisdiction,

independently of INA § 1252(g), or any other issues arising in the wake of the AADC decision. 8 U.S.C. §§
2

1252(b)(9) and 1252(g). See American-Arab, 119 S.Ct. at 943; Richardson, 162 F.3d at 1345-46, 1354, 1358

n. 99, 1373-74, 1377.
#### LINCOLN ROBERT STEWART, Executor of the Estate of R. *K.*STEWART, Deceased, v. NAN W. STEWART.

(Filed 14 December, 1955.)

Executors and Administrators § 26: Wills § 33e—

Where the will provides that testator’s widow should receive an annuity in a specified sum for life, consonant with an antenuptial agreement between the parties, and that the estate should remain unsettled for this purpose during the widow’s lifetime, the executor is not entitled to force the widow to accept a lump sum payment in commutation of the annuity.

Appeal by petitioner from *Crissman, J.,*at Chambers, GuilfoRD.

The petitioner initiated this proceeding before the Clerk Superior Court of Guilford County to require the respondent to accept a lump-sum payment based on her life expectancy according to the mortuary table in lieu of the $2,000 which her antenuptial agreement with R. K. Stewart provided should be paid to her each year during her life. The will of petitioner’s testator provided: “My estate must remain open and unsettled in the hands of my said executor, Lincoln Stewart, during the lifetime of my wife above named for the payment of the sums provided for her in the said ante-nuptial agreement.” (For further facts, see *Stewart v.*Stewart, 222 N.C. 387, 23 S.E. 2d 306.)

The respondent filed answer to the petition, objecting to the lump-sum payment upon two grounds: (1) That she is from a “long lived” family and in excellent health, with life expectancy much longer than the average; (2) that a lump-sum payment would place her in a much higher tax bracket than the annual payments provided for in the agreement with her husband.

The Clerk (1) denied the relief asked for in the petition, (2) ordered the payments made annually as provided in the agreement and confirmed by the will, and (3) ordered the executor to postpone settlement of the estate until after the death of Nan Stewart.

On appeal the Judge Superior Court ordered the payments made during the life of Nan W. Stewart as provided in the agreement. From the order, petitioner appealed.

*G. H. Jones and Knox Walker for 'petitioner, appellant.*

*James B. Lovelace for respondent, appellee.*

PER Curiam.

The widow has a right to insist upon the payments as provided for in her antenuptial contract. The will provides the estate must remain open and unsettled until the payments are made as pro*285vided. No reason appears why the contract should not be carried out as written. The judgment of the Superior Court of Guilford County is

Affirmed.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0001089 18-DEC-2014 10:14 AM
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mervin S. Kato, certify, that to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended
September 30, 2006 (the Form 10-Q), to which this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three month period covered by the Form 10-Q.



|                    |  |     |  |                                                                                                     
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 28, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ MERVIN S. KATO Mervin S.
Kato Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, MIPS Technologies, Inc



















A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided by MIPS
Technologies and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fifth Season International Inc.: Exhibit 10.5 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.5

Rent & Operation Contract entered by and between
Liyang the Fifth Season General Merchandise 
Investment
Management Co., Ltd. and Quanjuxiang Catering dated February 5 2010



Party A: Liyang The Fifth Season General Merchandise
Investment Management Co., Ltd 

Party B: Quanjuxiang Catering 

	General Information of the Rented Room 



	Rent Purpose: Xinhuachu Catering
  
	Location: 4th Floor, 5th Season Department Store
  Building, Intersection between Luowan Road and Yucai Road, Liyang City
  
	Area: 3274 sq.m. 




	Property Right 



	Party A promises to own the operation right to the rented room, and Party
  A is totally entitled to rent the room. Party A would settle the problem if
  there is any third party claims to the property right to the rented room.





	Term, Rental and Other Fees of Tenancy 



	Term of Tenancy: from August 1, 2010 to July 31, 2022
  
	Free Rental Term: from August 1, 2010 to July 31, 2011
  
	Rental: RMB 836,000 yuan for the first four years, the annual rental will
  increase by 3% per year after that (rental excluding from fees on water,
  electric, gas, communication, property management and government levy)
  
	Way of Payment: pay twice a year 




	Headlines of the articles omitted 



	Decoration & Fitment
  
	Sales & Property Management
  
	Modification and Termination of Contract
  
	Breach of the Contract
  
	Miscellaneous 




Signature Page 



Party A: Liyang the Fifth Season Investment Management Co., Ltd. 

By: /seal/ Liyang the Fifth Season Investment Management Co., Ltd. 



Date: February 5, 2010 



Party B: Liyang City Quanjuxiang Catering Co., Ltd. 

By: /seal/ Liyang City Quanjuxiang Catering Co., Ltd. 



Date: February 5, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4151]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-156-000]


Northwest Pipeline Corp.; Notice of Account No. 191 Report

February 15, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 8, 1995, Northwest Pipeline 
Corporation (Northwest), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission (Commission) an Account No. 191 report pursuant 
to Sec. 28.7(c) of the General Terms and Conditions of Northwest's FERC 
Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1.
    Northwest states that Sec. 28.7(c) requires Northwest to file a 
report with the Commission within 60 days of the amortization period 
pertaining to the Account No. 191 payments by Rate Schedule DS-1 
Customers (as set forth in Secs. 28.1 and 28.2) and Rate Schedule ODL-1 
Customers (as set forth in Secs. 28.4 and 28.5) showing the total 
amounts billed to each customer and containing workpapers supporting 
the amounts billed and paid by each customer.
    Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
Northwest's affected jurisdictional customers and relevant state 
regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest said filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Secs. 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests should be filed on 
or before February 23, 1995. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4151 Filed 2-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M