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

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Steven Bekropoulos, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Panorama
     Investments Corp.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
     material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
     flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
6th day of April, 2006.


/s/ Steven Bekropoulos
-------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-3043

HP Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5247

United Scope LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6641

Invacare Corp:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6014

Kyungshin Lear Sales and Engineering LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 17-BG-692

IN RE ELIZABETH M. FISCHER

 

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 461184 2016 DDN 168

BEFORE: Fisher and Easterly, Associate Judges, and Nebeker, Senior Judge.

O R D E R

(FILED – December 7, 2017)

On consideration of the certified order from the state of Virginia revoking 

respondent’s license to practice law; this court’s July 10, 2017, order suspending 

respondent pending resolution of this matter and directing her to show cause why 

reciprocal discipline in the form of disbarment should not be imposed, the response 

thereto, the statement of Disciplinary Counsel, respondent’s motion for an extension 

of time to supplement her initial response with documentation; and it appearing that 

respondent failed to file her D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g) affidavit; and it further 

appearing that respondent stipulated to the factual basis underlying her Virginia 

discipline and acknowledged her misconduct, it is 

ORDERED that Elizabeth M. Fischer is hereby disbarred from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010); In re 

Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical 

reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not 

participate). It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s motion for an extension of time to 

supplement her response to this court’s order is denied as moot. It is
No. 17-BG-692

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s attention is directed to the 

requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 relating to suspended attorneys and D.C. Bar 

R. XI, § 16 (c), dealing with the timing of eligibility for reinstatement as related to 

compliance with R. XI, § 14, including filing of the required affidavit. 

PER CURIAM
#### Judith Pascale, Respondent, v Stanley Hoppenfeld et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered on or about June 19, 1989, which granted defendants’ cross motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 and 3216 to the extent only of directing completion of discovery within 120 days of service of the court’s order with notice of entry, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although this medical malpractice action has now been pending 10 years, in light of its arguable merit, as reflected in the 1980 report of the orthopedic surgeon, and plaintiff’s *pro se*status and alleged medical problems at the time of her failure to comply with defendants’ 90-day notices and demands for discovery, the IAS court’s decision to permit plaintiff one last chance to have this action considered on its merits cannot be said to have been an improvident exercise of its discretion. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2957-2958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-722]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2958]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project Nos. 10100-000, 4437-006, 4376-001, 3913-001, 9787-000, 6984-
000, 10311-002, 10269-002, & 10416-003]


Cascade River Hydro, et al; Extending Time To Comment on Draft 
EIS

January 6, 1995.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for 9 proposed projects in the 
Skagit River Basin, Washington. The Notice of Availability of the DEIS 
appeared in the Federal Register on December 2, 1994, 59 FR 61894.
    In response to a letter filed by the Washington Department of 
Ecology, FERC is extending the comment period on the DEIS from January 
30, 1995, until March 1, 1995.
    Anyone wishing to comment in writing on the DEIS must do so no 
later than March 1, 1995. Comments should be addressed to: Lois D. 
Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North 
Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Written correspondence should clearly show the following caption on 
the first page: Skagit River Basin Docket No. EL85-19-119.

    For further information, please contact John McEachern at (202) 
219-3056.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-722 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5837

Camco Manufacturing, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests. 

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32.1



Section 906 Certification



The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2005 pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or any other securities law.



Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Broadwing Corporation.



|                   |  |                                      |  |          |  |                                                  
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------ |  | -------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David R. Huber |  | /s/ Lynn D. Anderson                
|                   |  |                                      | 
|Name:              |  | David R. Huber                       |  | Name:    |  | Lynn D. Anderson                                 
|Title:             |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  | Title:   |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                   |  |                                      | 
|Company:           |  | Broadwing Corporation                |  | Company: |  | Broadwing Corporation                            
|Date:              |  | November 7, 2005                     |  | Date:    |  | November 7, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8161]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Information Collection Under Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been sent the 
following collection(s) of information proposals for review under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 USC Chapter 35) and the 
Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act since the last list was 
published. Entries are grouped into submission categories, with each 
entry containing the following information;
    (1) the title of the form/collection;
    (2) the agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of 
the Department sponsoring the collection.
    (3) who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief 
abstract;
    (4) an estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond;
    (5) an estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection; and,
    (6) an indication as to whether Section 3504(h) of Public Law 96-
511 applies.
    Comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this 
notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated 
response time, should be directed to the OMB reviewer, Mr. Jeff Hill on 
(202) 395-7340 and to the Department of Justice's Clearance Officer, 
Mr. Robert B. Briggs, on (202) 514-4319. If you anticipate commenting 
on a form/collection, but find that time to prepare such comments will 
prevent you from prompt submission, you should notify the OMB reviewer 
and the Department of Justice Clearance Officer of your intent as soon 
as possible. Written comments regarding the burden estimate or any 
other aspect of the collection may be submitted to Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503, and to Mr. Robert B. Briggs, Department of 
Justice Clearance Officer, Systems Policy Staff/Information Resources 
Management/Justice Management Division Suite 850, WCTR, Washington, DC 
20530.

New Collection

    (1) Removal of Restriction on Employing Certain Individuals.
    (2) None. Drug Enforcement Administration.
    (3) Primary = Business or other for-profit. Others = Individuals 
and households, Not-for-profit institutions, Federal Government and 
State, Local, or Tribal Government. This collection is necessary to 
maintain a closed system of distribution by requiring notification from 
DEA registrants of their intent to employ persons who have been 
convicted of a felony offense.
    (4) 100 annual respondents at \1/2\ hour per response.
    (5) 50 annual burden hours.
    (6) Not applicable under Section 3504(h) of Public Law 96-511.
    Public comment on this item is encouraged.

    Dated: March 29, 1995.
Robert B. Briggs,
Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice.
[FR Doc. 95-8161 Filed 4-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
#### Donnie RICE, Appellant, v. FAB BUILDING CENTER, Respondent.

No. WD 49029.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 28, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 2, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 20, 1994.

Beverly Figg, Jefferson City, for appellant.

David Moen, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of Workers’ Compensation benefits.

Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84-16(b).
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40868

Conference Calendar

__________________

NESBITT EDWIN MADISON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LEONARD D. YOUNG, Correctional Officer, Beto I;

RICHARD K. THOMPSON, III, Correctional Officer, Beto I;

DAVID W. WIMBERLY, Correctional Officer, Beto I;

UNKNOWN WEST, Correctional Officer, Beto I,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CV-597

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nesbitt Edwin Madison appeals the district court's dismissal

as frivolous of his civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. A dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) is reviewed for an

abuse of discretion. Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir.

1994). We determine that the district court did not abuse its

discretion. 
No. 95-40868

-2-

Madison was not deprived of due process because the change

in his classification resulting from the disciplinary action did

not impose an atypical and significant hardship sufficient to

create a liberty interest protected by the due process clause. 

Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 192-93 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Madison's motions for discovery, temporary restraining

order, disclosure of information, and to add a defendant are

DENIED. 

This appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is

DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Madison is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Madison is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING.