alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT31.02**

**Rule13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications**

I, Michael L. Pungello,certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-Q of ML Cornerstone FuturesAccess LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,of internal control over financial reporting to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: August 14, 2006                         |                     |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|                                          |                     |
| By                                            | /s/ MICHAEL L.  PUNGELLO |   |
| Michael L.  Pungello                          |
| Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer   |
| (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|                                               |                          |  |

 

----
#### Hans Gernstl, Respondent, v Nathan Edwards et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendants appeal from an order that granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 and denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss plain*967tiffs complaint. The primary issue on appeal is the scope of the statutory exemption from strict liability under sections 240 and 241 of the Labor Law for owners of one- and two-family dwellings. Supreme Court found that defendants were not exempt from strict liability. We agree.

Defendants are the owners of a commercial dairy farm and reside in a single-family dwelling thereon. In May 1988, they entered into a contract for the construction of a pole barn which they needed for additional storage space in the operation of their farm. Plaintiff, an 18-year-old laborer employed by the contractor, was severely injured when he fell while working on the roof of the barn. It is undisputed that neither defendants nor the contractor supplied any safety equipment or devices at the worksite.

In *Balduzzi v West*(144 AD2d 1036, *Iv dismissed*74 NY2d 650), this court affirmed a decision of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which held that the owners of one- and two-family residences were exempted from responsibility to provide safe working conditions deemed appropriate for owners of commercial property and those engaged in building construction and repair *(Balduzzi v West,*141 Misc 2d 944, 946). In that case, however, the plaintiff was injured while working on a barn located on the grounds of defendants’ residence, to be used for noncommercial storage. The exception for owners of one- and two-family dwellings is not applicable here, however, where it is clear that plaintiff was injured while constructing a pole barn which was to be used for commercial purposes. Thus, we affirm the grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiff on the issue of liability under the Labor Law. In view of this determination, it is unnecessary to address the issues raised concerning section 200 of the Labor Law. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Allegany County, Feeman, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

ROBERT GARFIELD, ON BEHALF OF

HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY

SITUATED,

Petitioner

v.

EQT CORP.,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 4 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of May, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16629-16630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7882]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Meeting of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed 
Forces

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Commission on Roles and Missions of the 
Armed Forces.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the 
Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces.
    The Commission is charged with providing an independent review of 
the roles and missions of the armed services [[Page 16630]] to 
Congress, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff. The year-long review will identify changes that can be made 
to improve military effectiveness and eliminate unnecessary duplication 
among the services. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss some of 
the specific roles and missions issues that are being developed for 
consideration by the Commission. Material to be discussed will consist 
of both classified and unclassified information in a format that makes 
it impractical to separate the two.
    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-453, as amended (5 U.S.C. App II), it has been 
determined that this Commission on Roles and Missions meeting concerns 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that, accordingly, this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

DATES: April 9-10, 1995.

    Dated: March 27, 1995.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-7882 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6704

BYD Motors, Inc:

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/84_FR_21389.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             129
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,896
<ALLOWANCES>                                       152
<INVENTORY>                                      3,143
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,724
<PP&E>                                           1,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,595
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,904
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,572
<SALES>                                         16,416
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,416
<CGS>                                           11,538
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,538
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,910
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 237
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,731
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,711
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,711
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .017
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .015
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-864]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-301-000]


Stingray Pipeline Co.; Notice of Informal Settlement Conference

January 9, 1995.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in this proceeding on January 18, 1995, at 10 a.m., at the offices of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 810 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC, for the purpose of exploring the possible settlement of 
issues in this proceeding.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c) (1994), or any 
participant, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b) (1994), is invited to 
attend. Persons wishing to become a party must move to intervene and 
receive intervener status pursuant to the Commission's regulations at 
18 CFR 214 (1944).
    For additional information, please contact Warren C. Wood at (202) 
208-2091 or Marc G. Denkinger at (202) 208-2215.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-864 Filed 1-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### In the Matter of Kathleen Farley, Petitioner, v Edward V. Regan, as State Comptroller, Respondent.

Casey, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a Port Authority police officer, was injured when she slipped and fell on a stairway leading to the locker room *906where she was going to change into her uniform. The accident occurred approximately 20 minutes before her tour of duty was to begin and about five minutes before she was supposed to be ready for roll call. In denying petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, respondent concluded that the incident did not constitute an accident sustained in the performance of petitioner’s duties as a police officer because the accident did not occur during petitioner’s paid service for the day. Since substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner’s accident occurred prior to her shift and not in the course of her duties, the determination must be confirmed *(see, Matter of Cantello v Regan,*154 AD2d 867).

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5357 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 

for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school teachers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2023 

Mr. CASTEN (for himself and Mr. BURCHETT) 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 increase 

the deduction for certain expenses of elementary and 

secondary school teachers. 

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 ‘‘Educators Expense 

5 Deduction Modernization Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES 

7 OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL 

8 TEACHERS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 62(a)(2)(D) of the Inter10 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5357 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

2 SCHOOL TEACHERS’’ in the heading and inserting 

3 ‘‘ELIGIBLE EDUCATORS’’, and 

4 (2) by striking ‘‘$250’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,000’’. 

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 62(d)(3) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘2015’’ and inserting ‘‘2023’’, 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘$250’’ and inserting ‘‘$1,000’’, 

9 and 

10 (3) by striking ‘‘calendar year 2014’’ and in11 serting ‘‘calendar year 2022’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply with respect to taxable years begin14 ning December 31, 2022. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 21

- 00325

- CR
IN RE JOSE MARTINEZ

Original Proceeding

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011

- 1356

- C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roughly eight years after his conviction , Jose Martinez has asked this C ourt to compel the trial court to rule on pending discovery m otions by a writ of mandamus. The
referenced motions were not attached to the petition as was asserted by Martinez in the
petition. Without knowing when, as well as why, the motions were filed and why the
ruling by the trial court on the motions is neces sary or appropriate, we have no choice
but to deny the petition.
Accordingly , the “ Motion for Writ of Mandamus” filed by Martinez on December

6, 2021, is denied without prejudice to filing a proper petition for writ of mandamus withIn re Martinez Page 2 an appropriate record. See T EX

. R

. A PP P

. 52.3; 52.7 (contents of petition and
appendix/record).

TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed December 22 , 2021 Do not publish [OT06]
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6272

Yanfeng US Automotive Interior Systems I 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/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-7638

Carrier Corporation:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5653

Fluor Enterprises, 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
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 17

- 00254

- CR
JASON ALAN MCCONNELL , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the County Court at Law No

. 1 Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 15

- 03699

- CRM

- CCL1

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due February 26, 2018. After two extensions of
time were granted, Appellant’ s brief was due June 1, 2018. On May 29, 2018, a ppellant
requested a 15 day extension because counsel recently discovered that he only had a
limited time to access the reporter’s record through a link provided by the reporter and

has not had acc ess to the record.
In an order issued June 13, 2018, the Court question ed why counsel had not
discovered this potential problem in the five months since the record ha d been filed andMcConnell v. State Page 2

whether counsel could read the record and prepare and file an adequate brief within, at
most, 17 days. Nevertheless, the Court grant ed the motion and ordered appellant’s brief
due June 15, 2018. The Court also warned counsel that t he failure to timely file appellant’s

brief would result in the Court abating this appeal to d etermine if appellant is receiving

effective assistance of counsel. The Court has not received appellant’s brief.
Accordingly, w e abate th is appeal to the trial court to conduct any necessary
hearings within 21 days of the date of this Order pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3). T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(b)(2), (3).
The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records required by Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3), if any, a re ordered to be filed within 2 8 days of

the date of this Order. See id

.

PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Order issued and filed June 27 , 2018